Talk:San Jose State University

File:Sanjosestatefootballteam1941.jpg

Image you might want to incorporate into the article of the San Jose State University football team in Honolulu, Hawaii, cancelling a game with the University of Hawaii to volunteer with the Honolulu Police Department after the December 7, 1941 attacks. This photo has them training at Honolulu Police headquarters.

Redirects: San Jose State, SJSU, San José State University, San José State, California State University, San Jose, San Jose State College

Name of article

SJSU vs. CSU San Jose

Would someone please elaborate on the use of the adjective anti-California in the following quote, which appears in the SJSU article as of today, Feb. 13, 2006?

"In 1972 SJSC was granted university status, and the name was changed to California State University, San Jose. However, in 1974, despite the fact that the school's CSU name was a modernized restoration of the school's original California State Normal School identity, anti-California alumni at the school succeeded in lobbying the California Legislature to change the school's name to "San Jose State University"." CSU Spartan

Also, someone should probably elaborate in the later "CSU Spartans" paragraph on why those of the pro-"CSU San Jose" persuasion feel the current name is so inferior to the 1972-74 name. I personally don't see much difference and don't understand the motivation. Is it pride for the state of California? Do they dislike those particular individuals who lobbied for the name change in 1974? Does San Jose State University sound too much like San Jose City College (or community college names in general)? I'm not seeing the significance, so please explain. --66.160.179.84 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Great questions. Yes, pro-California and pro-CSU students and alumni in San Jose believe our identity as the oldest California State University campus (founded in 1862) is far superior to the failed, provincial and non-sensical "SJSU" identity. Your statement that it sounds like a community college name is very apt. The CSU reform and restoration movement in San Jose was founded by MBA alumni and students in 2003, and currently numbers several hundred students and alumni in multiple groups. For more info see http://www.californiastatebell.com. Historical entries in the Wikipedia about (1) the "San Jose State" putsch against the California State University, San Jose, in 1974, and (2) the development and continued growth the CSU reform and restoration movement,are accurate and relevant contributions to the Wikipedia regarding the history of the CSU campus in San Jose. Attempts by persons like NeoChaosX to censor this history and totally exclude any acknowlegement of the existence of this movement, in favor of his own views and interpretatons, is a violation of the five pillars of the Wikipedia. CSU Spartan 02:16, 07 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the people from the GoState organization using Wikipedia as a soapbox for their platform (something that's against Wikipedia policy, I believe). It's been taken care of anyway, but I imagine they'll be trying to change it again when they see their additions have been removed. NeoChaosX 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As part of an apparent campaign of disinformation, NeoChaosX is even attempting to rename the CSU Restoration movement in San Jose. There is, of course, nothing called the "GoState" organization or movement. This was coined by detractors of the CSU reform and restoration movement as part of their efforts to spread disinformation and malign and minimize this movement. The CSU reform movement was born with the creation of the "CSU Spartans" group by MBA students and alumni in October 2003. "GoState" is, and always has been, simply the name of the website http://www.gostate.org which was founded in March 2004. CSU Spartan

Your comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, and they are not necessary nor acceptable. Comment on content, not contributor. SolarianKnight 05:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NeoChaosX. The GoState people also made changes to the California State University article that needed to be dealt with, and there is an explanation of the 'flagship campus' controversey and issue on the Talk:California_State_University page. I suggest to the GoState people that they create their own article, cite evidence, records and authorities, and allow us to inspect, research and comment as to the accuracy of the statements made... this is not a bulletin board but rather an encyclopedia, so if all the GoState people are doing is advocating or advancing their own cause then the statements should not be placed here but rather on their own already-existing website. Streltzer 18:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The founder of GoState.org, Michael Harold, has been repeatedly flogging his agenda in blogs and messageboards since he started the organization. Biggeek 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective (for what it's worth), I believe being called Cal State or Cal State University, San Jose sounds a lot better than San Jose State University. Cal State Spartans sounds like a team that belongs in the Pac 10, San Jose State Spartans sounds...well WAC. However, we must stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created a stub about their campaign at GoState. NeoChaosX 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

San Jose State Name Change Student Vote

I have many citations for this section. For example, see: http://www.ktvu.com/news/11307189/detail.html How do I add this to the page. The citations section was not editable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSU Spartan (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

San Jose vs. San José

Accent marks (San José State University vs. San Jose State University) are included because they are part of the official name of the university (cf. its website) Joelwest 07:05, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• This is true. even the city of San José is very adamant about that " ´ " in its name. Davodd 07:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I've never seen San Jose spelled with an accent. The San Jose newspaper doesn't use an accent. http://www.sanjose.com/ doesn't use an accent. http://www.sanjosesharks.com/ doesn't use it. If they do it on their official websites, that's decidedly odd. Do we start putting accents on Los Angeles? RickK 16:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To jump in on this, as both a San Jose resident and a SJSU alum, the city and the university are pretty much the only instutitions that use the accent, the rest of us ignore it. I believe the accent was adopted in the late 1980s or early 1990s to show off our "cultural heratige" as the oldest city in California. It is a symptom of SJ's inferiority complex. Gentgeen 22:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The website http://www.sanjose.com/ is a cybersquatter that has no official standing other than they grabbed the name first. The Sharks can call themselves whatever they want -- just as a business could call itself San Jose Bar & Grill or San Josie Bar & Grill -- but it's not as though the city leaders would change their city name to reflect that. (This is reverse causality).

Gentgeen is right that the switch is comparatively recent. I personally agree with him it's a silly affectation, or, more likely, kotowing to political correctness. As a voter in San José and an employee of SJSU, I am not doing this because I agree with the names, but because I want Wikipedia to come up with unambigous guidelines to head off edit wars.

Whether the name choice is serious or silly, the principle seems quite clear. If Cassius Clay wants to call himself Muhammad Ali or Louise Ciccone wants to call herself Madonna, the press, electronic databases and paper-based reference materials honor that. For an organization, whether the Girl Scouts of America or the Department of Defense, the only fair test is what they choose to call themselves. For wikipedia, the only practical test is what name is used on the official organizational website. By such tests, both the city of San José and San José State University require an accent. Joelwest 06:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, my mom's a fairly high level voluanteer in the local council of the Girl Scouts, so I know their official name to be Girl Scouts of the United States of America[1]. I should go and suggest they move the article, but NAH.

Back on topic, the use of the accent isn't universal within the city. The fire department[2] and the public library[3] use it, the police[4] and chamber of commerce[5] do not. The city charter has no accent mark over the "e", and neither do the seal (the bundle of wheat thingie) nor the logo (the sunset thingie with "The Capitol of Silicon Valley" under it). Now, SJSU's a little different, as the accent is used universally, except for the university's seal, which does not have the mark. I personally don't care where the articles reside, but do think that wherever is chosen, the other needs to be a redirect.Gentgeen 07:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure it actually matters what they call themselves as our naming policy states we use whatever is most common in English, which is not necessarily the same as what the city decides to call itself. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for example. Angela. 19:32, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree the question is "most common", but "most common" among what universe. Gentgeen is right we have to redirect all variants (as is already policy). For that matter, I have no problem with having the main database link be without accents (whether for San José or anything else) since people won't tend to type them. It just seems as though the proper name should be listed in the beginning of the entry (as with any other dictionary or encyclopedia) cross-referenced to common variants. Joelwest 22:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't care whether the accent is used or not, but either way, it should be consistent. The article currently uses both "San Jose" and "San José" multiple times. -anon, 20 June 2006

San Jose vs. San José - Round #2

The article on the city has been moved to a title without the accent- San Jose, California - because there is no question that that is the more common usage, per WP:NC. Likewise, the most common usage would appear to be "San Jose State University", regardless of what is on the university's website. For example, the San Jose Mercury News writes about "San Jose State".[6] Is there any objection to moving this article, and subsidiary articles like San José State Spartans plus the Category:San José State University and subcategories, to "San Jose"?   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll move the articles and request that the category be moved as well.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

California State Normal School

An anonymous user (who I'm guessing is User:Michaelch7) proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California that California State Normal School be restored to its own article. My take on it (as an outsider, although I am from SJ and was a devoted listener of KSJS in my high school years) is that it seems like it would be OK, as long as that article focuses solely on the California State Normal School system as a teacher's college. The History section of this article as well as that in California State University could be summary sections (see Wikipedia:Summary style) of the other article. After all, College of California is its own article, and it might be expandable (with enough research) to be more than what would properly fit either the CSU or SJSU articles. Anyway, I leave it you for discussion. howcheng {chat} 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Howcheng. It's nice to see a reasonable response from a Wikipedia admin. And don't let NeoChaosX bamboozle you, like he has the others. He claims the California State Normal School article is related to the CSU restoration movement, but is it really? It simply discusses an entity that existed, and was more than "SJSU" (as it also included what is now UCLA) and less than the current "CSU" Michaelch7

My take on it (as the person who nominated the original article for deletion) is a no. In the CSU talk page, it became pretty clear that User:CSU Spartan/Michaelch7 was a member of a small group that wants to rename San Jose State, and the CSNS article was just used to promote this group and their agenda, in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that the original article seemed to partly focus on the naming of the school and the school's "identity" just supported this viewpoint.

Additionally, from the College of California's article, it appears to have a relationship to the UC system similar to Minns Evening Normal School has to the CSU system (as a separate private college from which a public college system was created), and the Minns School doesn't have it own article (the name redirects to an aritcle about it's founder). On the other hand, the entity that was CSNS is now San Jose State, and their histories are one in the same (the history part of the CSNS article was mostly a re-treading of what was already in the SJSU article), which is why I advocated for the article to be a redirect. For the issues of redundancy and considering the creator's motive, I would keep it as a redirect. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the violation of Wikipedia rules that has occurred here as clearly been committed by NeoChaosX and other militant supporters of "City-Statism" within the CSU system. It is obvious that there mission is to totally suppress and censor any view that doesn't comport with their city-statist views, in clear violation of the Wikipedia's neutrality guidlines. Evidence of this could clearly be seen earlier this year, when they deleted the images of all CSU campuses except the city-state campuses of San Jose State, San Diego State and San Franciso State. They also threw in a picture of Cal Poly to cover their tracks. Thankfully, their destructive influence on the Wikipedia has now been diminished as more reasonable editors have entered the fray. Michaelch7

OK, here's what we can do. Whoever it was that proposed the restoration of the article (Michaelch7 or CSU Spartan), why don't you work on the article in your user space. Create a page User:Michaelch7/California State Normal School (replace the username with your username if you are not Michaelch7) and write the article there. I expect it will be a scholarly article about the California State Normal School system and its history, well cited etc etc. When you are done, let people here know and if it's a good article, we can put it back in article space. To me, that sounds like a reasonable compromise -- this allows you to prove that you can write such an article that's not a soapbox for GoState, and it also (for the time being) preserves the consensus that was made in the deletion debate. How does that sound? howcheng {chat} 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I'll do. By the way, your comparison to the College of California is very apt. The California State Normal School was an institution that gave birth to both "San Jose State" and the entire CSU system. It is an important part of California history, and something different and distinct from both the current "SJSU" and the CSU system. The only difference is that the College of California article isn't under attack by a band of city-statist zealots working to usurp California and CSU history, and impose their own distorted city-statist views and perspective on everyone else, in clear vioaltion of Wikipedia precepts. Michaelch7

HowCheng, as per your instructions, the California State Normal School article revisions are complete and it is submitted in honor of the State of California for reinclusion in the Wikipedia as part of the Project California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelch7/California_State_Normal_School Thank You. Michaelch7 27 December 2006

Restored link to this article, which has been restored by the Wikipedia as part of the Wikipedia Project California Michaelch7 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Section

The alumni section was getting a bit out-of-hand. I went through and deleted some folks that were on the lower-end of the notability scale and organized it to make it a bit more interesting. This is certainly a rough-draft, so change away as needed.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The section looks like it is about ready to be split off into a standalone article like many other universities. Alanraywiki (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. I agree, though. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Moore

SJSU lists Intel cofounder Gordon Moore as an alum here. They don't say what degree he recieved, or when, but I'd assume the university knows who it's alumni are, so I'm going to restore him to the list. Gentgeen 17:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's entry for Gordon E. Moore claims he spent 2 years at SJSC before transfering to Cal, which was common back then (my mom made the exact same transition about 8 years earlier). And his wife is a graduate of SJSC.

A quick google check shows the smoking gun of an oral history, where he says "I went through grammar schools here locally, Sequoia High School, two years at San Jose State, where I met my wife-to-be, and then transferred to University of California at Berkeley for my junior and senior years." So the oral history has been added to Wikipedia's biography and we can say that Moore attended but did not graduate from SJSC. JoelWest 22:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not suppried, as the practice is still common. I've got a freind who made the same transition only 7 years ago. Gentgeen 23:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Famous Faculty

I removed "Donald West - chemistry" because he is not listed as current faculty. I don't think there's a problem in including former faculty, but since he doesn't have his own Wikipedia entry and there's no information about him on the SJSU site, his significance should be noted to justify listing him ahead of several thousand other faculty. JoelWest 18:51, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Doctor West is one of the authors (with Douglas Skoog from Stanford University and James Holler from the University of Kentucky) of Analytical Chemistry, an Introduction (my edition's ISBN 0-03-097285-X), which is the standard analytical chemistry textbook in the world, translated into dozens of languages, and used to train generations of chemists (my aunt still has her first edition Skoog/West from the 1970s). A google search for Skoog and West and Holler and Chemistry [7] yields 2,280 results, and if you remove Holler (who became involved in the 5th edition, I think) you get 4,110 results [8]. Dr West was a professor emeritus when I was there 6 years ago, teaching one class a semister. It's possible he's completely stoped teaching by now. Gentgeen 23:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Donald M. West retired as of 1995 JoelWest 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Year of Establishment

Change of Year of Establishment from 1862 to 1857

Someone had changed the year of establishment of the California State Normal School from May 2, 1862, to May 2, 1857, which is incorrect. I corrected this mistake, and to prevent further confusion between the school's two years of establishment added a paragraph explaining when and why San Jose State changed its date of establishment from May 2, 1862, to an unknown date in 1857.

Citation for May 2, 1862 law: Act to Establish and Maintain a State Normal School (May 2, 1862), The Statutes of California, pp. 472-473, Benj. P. Avery, State Printer, Sacramento, 1862.

I have personally examined the records indicating when school changed its year of establishment, but I did not make copies. I will go back to the Special Collections Room and secure a citation for this document as soon as possible. Michaelch7 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Minns Evening Normal School

In the info. box, I noticed Minns Evening Normal School, which appears to be an earlier name for the California State Normal School. Should we mention the Minns school (San Francisco Normal School) in the history section (and its 1857 establishment date)? - Johnlogic (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I found some information about the Minns school on the SJSU site and added (restored?) that to the history. - Johnlogic (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG

Image:CSU.PNG 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sjsulogo.jpg

Image:Sjsulogo.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 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 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP CSU

	Hi! I noticed your contributions and thought you would be a great addition to the California State University task force over at WikiProject California. Please consider this your personal invitation to join; if you're interested, you can signup here! We currently have 1172 articles under our task force and would appreciate any assistance, large or small, with getting them to good article status. (We've got 18 there so far!) Whether you decide to join or not, thank you for everything you've already done to make Wikipedia better, and oh yeah...GO STATE!
~~~~

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

Neutral Point of View

Wow, this article surely talks up SJSU, an institution that is fairly mediocre and within the bay area, doesn't have much of a ranking since those places are taken by University of California, Berkeley, Stanford, University of California, San Francisco, and University of California, Santa Cruz. I'm amazed at how talked up SJSU is. LOL LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.5.245 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed this sectionb's heading from "Wow!" to "Neutral Point of View". The article clearly lacks NPOV! Please see my related comments under the "Rivals" talk heading. - Johnlogic (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Unqualified statements such as "fairly mediocre," and smug (and irrelevant) comparisons to Stanford and Cal reveal your overtly biased POV. This is not about the SJSU article lacking neutrality so much as it's about your biased preconceptions. Any reference to SJSU's academic distinctions or national rankings, etc., is perceived by you as inaccurate or unbelievable or trumped up, or whatever, based on your biased POV.

Having said that, I did go through the article and attempt to neutralize language that could be perceived as boastful, and I located and added citations for all ranking stats and figures, which without exception proved accurate. Outside of that, I could not find any information that was unverifiable or inaccurate or exaggerated. This article is no different from the Cal or Stanford articles in that it emphasizes the university's academic distinctions, history and general pride points, while ignoring perhaps more mundane facts and figures, etc. In the case of the Cal and Stanford articles, you interpret a positive voice as a neutral POV because you admire Cal and Stanford, but you don't accept a positive voice in reference to SJSU because you clearly look down upon SJSU based on overtly biased and arguably inaccurate preconceptions.

Unfortunately for you, the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing as a result of reading an entirely factual and basically neutral article about "that other Bay Area school" does not warrant a neutrality dispute. Perhaps you need to check your presumptions at the door before endeavoring to edit or criticize, and accept that reality isn't always what you were taught and/or conditioned to believe. Your dismissive and unsigned criticism is more reflective of a class dispute (i.e. - private school versus public school or UC versus CSU) than a genuine, heartfelt concern for truth and neutrality. The bottom line is the truth makes you uncomfortable. In your mind, SJSU couldn't possibly be as distinguished as the article suggests.

This dispute is resolved.

Londonfifo (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Londonfifo

I disagree with your unilateral decision. I'm replacing the NPOV tag, and hope that we can reach some consensus before pulling it again. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples that point to a lack of neutrality. If you cannot provide examples, what is there to dispute? You say there is a lack of neutrality here, but I fail to see it. Please show me one factual error. Please show me one opinion-based statement or assertion. It seems your version of a NPOV in this case is an article that runs down or belittles SJSU because it's not Cal or Stanford or mighty De Anza College. Londonfifo (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no further dialogue on this topic, and given the lack of specific objections and/or suggestions with regard to POV, I am removing the neutrality dispute tag. The allegations regarding lack of neutrality in this case are vague and essentially unsupported. Please do not insert this tag unless you are prepared to discuss specifics and/or suggest changes and make improvements. The generally positive tone of this article is no different from most major university Wiki articles, and is entirely in accordance with the WP:UNIGUIDE. Londonfifo (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with describing SJSU's ranking as "top tier overall". Clearly, it is within the top tier of its classification, but not among all schools in the nation. I clarified this and cleaned up the academics section. With this edit (and our previous work), I am now satisfied that the NPOV tag is unnecessary.

Also, please note that it was not I who described SJSU as "fairly mediocre". Though I had plenty of horrible experiences while I studied there, I am encouraged by the school's improvement over the last 20 years. - Johnlogic (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Rankings in the lead

I had removed a paragraph in the lead section about the university's ranking per the following from the Neutral Point of View section of WP:UNIGUIDE: "Do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and provide undue weight and emphasis to only a few publications' rankings or methodologies." An editor as readded the information indicating that WP:UNIGUIDE does allow rankings in the lead. As we want to be consistent with these guidelines, maybe some clarification is needed to determine the correct approach. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the ranking information from the intro per your suggestion. I was referring to the following passage in the UNIGUIDE when I added ranking info in the intro:

Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article — not simply an introduction.

This passage does not clearly prohibit inclusion of rankings in the intro, but I see now there are much clearer and stronger guidelines regarding intro structure and rankings elsewhere in the WP:UNIGUIDE. I agree we should remain consistent with the GUIDE. Thank you. Londonfifo (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with taking the rankings out of the lead-in. I prefer to keep only the most notable information in the introduction, then go from general to specific. Only if its ranking was among the very best (e.g. such as Harvard or Stanford) would I consider it worth mentioning in the introduction. - Johnlogic (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Londonfifo (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rivals - Academic/Athletic?

I added the University of California, Berkeley, as a rival. As the two oldest public institutions of higher learning in California, these two schools have a storied rivalry dating back to the late 1860s. Their football teams started playing each other in the 1890s and have met many times since. The two schools also compete in D1A intercollegiate basketball, with the latest encounter occuring earlier this year (2006). Michaelch7

Changed the order of Stanford and Santa Clara universities. Stanford is clearly the more significant rival. CSU Spartan

Reinstated Rivals reference to Cal after apparent deletion vandalism. CSU Spartan 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again reinstated link after another round of deletion vandalism. This time put Cal under CSU Fresno. I hereby appeal for Wikipedia protection from this link. Also, how is the vandal able to hide his repeated removal's of this link? CSU Spartan 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? SJSU and Berkeley aren't rivals. Berkeley is a top tier institution and SJSU is third or four tier. Berkeley and Stanford are rival schools, but not with SJSU, an oft forgotten university somewhere in San José. LOL

To the unidentified poster who refers to SJSU as a "third or fourth tier" institution, please refer to USNWR. SJSU has received a top-tier regional ranking for many consecutive years. If you know anything about public higher education in CA, you understand the mission of the CSU is entirely different from that of the UC, which is why CSU campuses are prohibited from granting doctoral degrees. This is why the CSU campuses don't appear in the national ranking indexes, along with many fine private liberal arts colleges and other undergraduate and/or teaching-oriented (as opposed to research-oriented) institutions. A regional classification (as opposed to a national one) absolutely does NOT make a university inferior by default. Londonfifo (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Stanford and SJSU have a storied football rivalry that dates back to 1900. It even has a name! It's called the Bill Walsh Legacy Classic after the late, great legendary coach Bill Walsh. Walsh played football for SJSU and graduated from SJSU with two degrees, but he was the head coach at Stanford for many years. There is another bit of trivia and intrigue related to this rivalry. Legendary FB coach Jack Elway coached for SJSU when his son John was the starting QB at Stanford. SJSU defeated Stanford all three times father and son faced each other on the field. Please know the subject about which you speak before you post ignorant, antagonistic and inflammatory comments. Academic reputations aside, SJSU's football rivalries with Stanford and Cal date back to 1900 and 1899 respectively, and are most certainly legit. Thank you very much. Londonfifo (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above unsigned comment. SJSU is peerless; it's the only Silicon Valley school that I know of that could manage to loose accreditation in computer science. (SJSU didn't have it while I was there 1988-1991, but has since recovered it.) According to U.S. News and World Report, Stanford is one of the top 10 universities in the nation. Cal Berkeley also ranks highly, but not in the top 10, making it a near rival to Stanford. UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis are easily better schools than SJSU. So is De Anza College, which--I observed--regularly lures away SJSU's best faculty with better pay. - Johnlogic (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnlogic: De Anza college? Are you serious? Of course, I would not expect you to have a NPOV regarding the Cal State flagship considering you hold five "degrees" from the local community college. Furthermore, what does an alleged loss of accreditation in one relatively narrow discipline twenty years ago have to do with football rivalries? You say you attended SJSU for three years. Does that mean you failed to graduate? Perhaps you should extricate yourself from SJSU-related discussions and Wiki articles, since it appears you may have an ax to grind. I, for one, did not attend SJSU, but I do believe in fairness and open-mindedness. Oh, and I loathe UC arrogance, especially when it appears to be coming from a community college grad (read wannabe). Londonfifo (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Londonfifo: That's an awful lot of edits you made immediately before leaving the project--did you get fed up or just get the boot? Also, thanks for the personal attacks, I really enjoy them; perhaps you might be interested in reading the Five pillars of Wikipedia.

Johnlogic: I don't understand what you mean here. I did not leave any project, nor did I get the boot. Londonfifo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't have a neutral point of view (NPOV). (Who does?) By its very nature, Wikipedia's editors are a self-selecting group. We can, however, attempt to maintain neutrality within our work through respectful discussion and debate on Talk pages, hopefully reaching some consensus that approximates NPOV.

And, yes, I'm serious about De Anza College. That's where I found SJSU's best (former) faculty. De Anza pays better, and is recognized nationally for its excellence (unlike SJSU). For many years already, there has also been discussion about possibly promoting De Anza to a four-year institution. But of course I'm biased--I actually attended both schools.

Finally, please don't knock community colleges or their students or graduates. We've all got to start somewhere, and I admire anyone who's willing to get an education anywhere, however humble. And again I'm biased: I did earn my first five degrees at De Anza (thanks for stalking me) and now teach at a community college. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnlogic: I'll agree not to knock De Anza and two-year colleges in general if you agree not to knock a major, four-year state university with a 150-year history of academic excellence and service to its community. You appear to predicate your POV dispute based on biased preconceptions and academic rankings in a magazine. I don't get it. Oh, and last time I checked, SJSU received national rankings in engineering and library science. This information is clearly presented in the article. I'd like to know which De Anza College programs make it so much better than SJSU. Is it the Associate Arts degree program? Is it the computer tech certification program? I hear the welding certification classes over there are dynamite. Oh, and how is it "stalking" to read public information proudly promoted within your Wiki profile? Londonfifo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Londonfifo: That's exactly what it means: SJSU doesn't make the grade to be ranked among the 262 top universities in the nation. Surely you don't equate SJSU's "top-tier" ranking in its division to Stanford or Berkeley's national top-tier rankings, do you? Let's clarify your statement that SJSU "enjoys a top-tier academic ranking overall": SJSU has a "top-tier" ranking within its classification, which is below national universities. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnlogic: You apparently do not understand the purpose of the regional and national classifications. A regional classification does NOT necessarily denote academic inferiority. The various classifications are made based on research expenditures and the overarching mission of the respective institutions, among other things. Please read up on the applied methodology. There are many bottom-tier national universities that simply pale in comparison (academically) to top-tier liberal arts colleges and master's-level institutions. The reasoning behind the different classification assignments is rooted in the methodology. If one of the criterion for determining the academic standing of a university is research expenditures, for example, is it fair to compare U.C. Berkeley to Reed College? Of course not. They are apples and oranges. If you're talking about research, then yes, Berkeley is superior. If you're talking about liberal arts education and quality of undergraduate instruction, Reed is the superior choice. The point of the classifications is to ensure institutions are evaluated against their peers. Different criteria are emphasized in each of the various classifications. In the (non-research-oriented) realm, SJSU ranks among the top-15 public institutions in the western region. When compared against its peer institutions, it places in the top tier. In the end, the needs and goals of the prospective student will dictate which university classification is right for him/her. Londonfifo (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Funny, I don't see any comparison with other schools, other than football rivalry with UC ("Cal") Berkeley and with Stanford. Academically, SJSU has a lot of competition. Nearby universities ranked (in Tier 1 nationally) by US News include Stanford (4th[9]), UC Berkely (21st [10]), UC Davis (42nd [11]), UC Santa Cruz (71st [12]) and USF (121st [13]). SJSU has no national ranking. Of the remaining Tier 1 masters-granting universities in the 15 western states (note the heavy qualifications for this list), Santa Clara U. ranks 2nd [14], SJSU ranks 38th[15] and SFSU ranks 45th [16]. CSU East Bay (formerly Hayward) is so bad it falls in Tier 3 (without further ranking) [17]. - Johnlogic (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation of ranking methodology (above) and the purpose of grouping universities into various subsets based on academic mission, etc. Also, please bear in mind all top-tier schools, regardless of which subset or classification they fall into, receive a numerical score that reflects overall academic quality. SJSU's composite score is actually the same or higher than 8 or 10 top-tier national universities including Arizona State, University of San Francisco, University of Utah, University of Arkansas and Colorado State, among others. Are you telling me a third-tier or fourth-tier national university (with a much lower overall academic score) is superior to a top-tier regional school simply by virtue of its "national university" classification? Again, it's clear to me you don't understand the purpose of grouping schools according to academic mission and evaluating them against their peers, nor do you understand the methodology employed to determine the rankings. All you've really done here is dismiss and belittle SJSU's objective and much-better-than-average academic rankings based on a flawed understanding of the ranking system, and then used that to dispute the neutrality of the article. Beyond that, while joining the unsigned poster in criticizing San Jose State, you suggest a local (unranked) two-year community college is probably superior academically to the founding campus of the California State University system! How am I supposed to take you seriously, especially when it turns out the community college in question (by your own admission) also happens to be your alma mater and your employer? I am the first to admit community colleges are important and have their place, and I apologize for belittling you in this regard, but I find it extremely difficult to take this dispute seriously given your own incredibly obvious lack of neutrality here and your obvious negative bias toward SJSU. Again, please point to specific language in the article that needs to be altered and explain why it lacks neutrality. It's not enough to want to eliminate positive facts about SJSU simply because your perception of the school is that it's not all that great. Londonfifo (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Famous JohnLogic quote: "I poo poo SJSU." October 30, 2009. Once again, you may want to extricate yourself from your work on this article and move on to something else. It's clear you harbor ill feelings toward SJSU. Londonfifo (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the article's obvious bias, that description of my edit to this page seemed appropriate (and still does).

For the record, I have never been employed by De Anza College, nor have I claimed to be. (Though, I do now teach at another community college.) I have fully disclosed reasons why I might seem biased, but still haven't seen yours. (This discussion belongs in the NPOV section, if anywhere.)

With other nearby colleges now only named/linked via info boxes at the bottom of the article, do we really need to continue discussion of "rivals"? With the academic rankings, would it help (or hinder) the article to note that SJSU outranks neighboring CSUs SF and East Bay (and possibly others)? - Johnlogic (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Language

Londonfifo and I have been debating (see above) about the use of the term "tier". I find the phrase "...and receives a regional top-tier academic ranking overall" inaccurate. SJSU certainly has a top-tier ranking within its classification, which specifically excludes other schools in its region. I maintain my position that such a phrase misrepresents SJSU's performance as on par with those in the national classification. (See USNWR methodology.) I find that using the term "tier" merely detracts from the article. It's also redundant, as it's based on a school's ranking. So, I have dropped the phrase.

I'd also like to stress the need for accurate language within rankings. I have again revised the rankings, this time putting the U.S. News rankings in one (the first) paragraph. Note that I lead with text like "U.S. News ranks SJSU..." indicating the active voice and whose ranking we use (vs. "SJSU is ranked..."). Phrases like "SJSU ranks..." can be acceptable but risk being ambiguous, especially if we don't first establish who is doing the ranking.

- Johnlogic (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your strange need to downplay SJSU's REGIONAL TIER ONE RANKING is getting very irksome and strikes me as suspicious. You insist on replacing clear and well-written leads and information within the rankings section with poorly constructed, ambiguous language that WEAKENS the entry. A REGIONAL TOP-TIER RANKING IS WHAT IT IS, and is clearly not the same thing as a NATIONAL TOP-TIER RANKING.

I have re-worded the lead as follows:

According to U.S. News and World Report's college rankings (2010), San Jose State ranks 38th among all master's-level institutions in the Western region of the United States,[15] 12th among public master's-level institutions in the Western region,[16] and receives a Tier One academic ranking overall among master's-level institutions in the west.[17] The Western region comprises 15 states and is home to approximately 125 master's-level colleges and universities.[18]

I don't see how this info can be any more explicit. SJSU's rank among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions within a relatively narrow geographic area is clearly spelled out here, and the size of the geographic region, the number of master's-level institutions it contains, and the SOURCE of the rankings are all clearly identified in order to provide needed context.

Furthermore, it seems clear to me you still don't understand the USNWR ranking methodology. Masters-level universities are NOT ranked against national universities, but if they were, a national classification would NOT necessarily guarantee a higher ranking than every school with a master's or baccalaureate-level classification. Virtually ALL Tier 3 and Tier 4 national universities receive a lower ACADEMIC SCORE than the hundreds (thousands?) of Tier 1 master's and baccalaureate-level institutions nationwide. Yes, there are many Tier 1 NATIONAL universities that receive a much HIGHER academic score (and are much more prestigious academically) than SJSU, but there also are many NATIONAL universities across the U.S. that score much LOWER than SJSU academically.

For better or worse, national universities are NOT ranked against master's or baccalaureate-level institutions since the system is designed to rank schools against their PEER institutions. National and master's-level and baccalaureate institutions are all ranked SEPARATELY. Among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in the 15-state Western region, SJSU lands in the top tier, and has for the past 10 years. Among public MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in the region, SJSU is currently ranked 12th and has been ranked as high as 8th (2007). These are simple, unambiguous facts that are explicitly stated and verifiable.

There is NO bias here other than your apparent need to downplay SJSU's achievements and to personally make sure that anyone perhaps unfamiliar with the perceived pecking order among Bay Area schools KNOWS, under no uncertain terms, that Berkeley and Stanford, etc., are considered much "better." I'm guessing you'd only be satisfied if the SJSU rankings section included a statement that basically spelled that out, even though you must know that such subjective posturing would not be in accordance with Wiki standards.

Please just let the data speak for itself. I agree boosterism is bad (see Cal Berkeley's Wiki entry), but the OPPOSITE of boosterism is no more objective or allowable either under Wiki rules. A ranking of 38th among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in a 15-state region is not exactly what I would call stellar placement. Anyone should be able to ascertain from this article that SJSU is considered "pretty good" among MASTER'S-LEVEL, non-research oriented schools, but is not really a player on the national scene. I think its respectable-but-not-stellar REGIONAL ranking among schools that don't offer PhDs is clearly and accurately stated here and does a fair job of establishing SJSU's overall "place" in academia. I mean, it is OBVIOUS a regional ranking within the MASTER'S-LEVEL classification excludes comparisons to LOTS of other universities across the country. Again, please just let the data speak for itself, and stop trying to couch it in a way that makes SJSU appear below average academically, which simply isn't fair.

Also, please take the time to understand the USNWR methodology. While it's true that Tier 1 national universities are often judged to be academically superior to Tier 1 master's or baccalaureate-level institutions, this is not always the case. As I indicated in a previous exchange, USNWR actually gives SJSU a higher overall ACADEMIC SCORE than several Tier 1 NATIONAL institutions in the West, and a master's-level school like Cal Poly lands in the top 5-10% of ALL universities (National, master's AND baccalaureate) in the West, based on it's overall ACADEMIC SCORE. Of course, Cal Poly doesn't appear alongside schools like UCLA or Cal or Oregon, etc. in the ranking indexes because it is ranked SEPARATELY! Londonfifo (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Londonfifo: I understand the USNWR methodology (and linked to it, above), but continue to disagree.

As you are relatively new here, I had made some suggestions regarding Wikipedia policies and etiquette on your talk page. Since we haven't been able to work constructively together, I have asked for some assistance in resolving our disagreements.

With my revision that you struck, I had improved the names of the references in the Rankings section, and better matched the claims with the sources. (It's difficult to do the latter with many reference listings that name only "Best Colleges 2010".) I don't believe that I "downplay" or "couch" anything; the collection of data does speak for itself, but we must clearly identify who claims what.

- Johnlogic (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Princeton Review

For the claim "The Princeton Review lists San Jose State's graduate school of business among the top 296 in the nation.", I checked the reference and found no ranking nor anything to substantiate SJSU's position within "the top 296". Could someone find a source? If not, shall we remove the claim and preserve the link in the "External links" section?

Because we have had significant debate about rankings, I'll be gentle and merely move the position of the current citation and add a "citation needed" tag.

- Johnlogic (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Still needs cleanup

The rankings section is still pretty untamed. This section is starting to look more like an awards case than an encyclopedia article. I'll take a stab at it when I have the chance. A few examples:

 *Many of these rankings are annual, so 2010 numbers should be updated to the 2011 stats (or removed if the ranking is no longer notable).  
 *U.S. News rankings should probably be consolidated into a single paragraph or subsection (instead of each bullet point ending in "... according to U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges 2010."
 *Rankings and mentions in the media that are over 2 years old should be looked at closely to ensure that they are still relavent/notable.

--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger from California State Normal School

I propose that we merge the California State Normal School article into the one for San Jose State University. As both describe the same subject, having two articles seems redundant. Also, information on one page hasn't been propagating to the other. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with merge per WP:SS. Also, the CSNS was a distinct entity unto itself. The article could be trimmed, however. Amerique^dialectics 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger as well per WP:SS. As stated above, the CSNS was clearly a distinct entity unto itself, and was an integral part of the history of several CSU schools including SFSU and Chico State. Also, to include a proper history of the CSNS within the SJSU history section would give disproportionate weight to this section of the SJSU article. Each section of the SJSU article should remain consistent both in terms of breadth and level of detail. Londonfifo (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the California State Normal School (SNS, later California State Teachers Colleges) was a precursor to and subset of the California State University (CSU), would it be appropriate to integrate SNS into CSU (instead of into SJSU)? - Johnlogic (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that this article should be merged with either the SJSU or CSU article. The CSNS was a multi-campus "normal school" institution bigger than just San Jose, but far smaller than the California State University system that was founded in 1961, almost 100 years later. Also, these issues have already been decided. San Jose State supporters first vandalized then deleted the CSNS article based on their political opposition to the school's Cal State history and identity, using the same argument brought up here. I fought for its restoration, which was approved by multiple Wikipedia editors. Now the same issues are being rehashed. The legal system has a principle called Stare Decisis, meaning that which is decided is decided. The same should apply to rehashing the same issues with regard to this article over and over again. The CSNS was an important part of California educational history, which should not be supressed for flimsy reasons. Michaelch7 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This article must remain separate from San Jose State U. and CSU so as to not hide the historical significance of the CSNS. This article is a strong reminder that using "California" to identify the university came well before using the much weaker "San Jose." EastBayM (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This matter was already decided when the article was reinstated after militant San Jose State supporters deleted it before. Also, the discussion of this issue on the San Jose State page supports keeping this article separate. How many times and how long must this pernicious suggestion of merger be entertained? I request that the notice about merging this article be removed. - Michaelch7 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Flagship campus of the CSU is at CPSUSLO!

According to some pro-Cal Poly SLO editors, SLO is the flagship of the CSU. His/Her sources are some obscure SLO-hosted website where Chancellor Charles B. Reed allegedly refereed to them as such 1 and a SJSU athletics blog 2. The again in a Los Angeles Times report, it was described as the academic star of the CSU 3 (Nevermind the fact that the article is bashing the school for the lack of diversity and elitist stances). I'm sick and tired of reverting this non-sense and would appreciate any help from CalState at San Jose editors. The CSU needs to adress its naming convention... PRONTO!--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cal Poly article merely states that it has been referred to as such, which it has. The citation literally refers to Charles Reed's (chancellor of the CSU) position on the matter. The SDSU article also makes the claim for itself, and the SJSU article also indirectly makes the claim. This nonsense by Marco is merely part of his long standing attempt to vandalize the Cal Poly article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)