Talk:Zahm Hall

Vandalism Alert

The University of Notre Dame just announced it will be closing the dorm and kicking its current residents out. At Notre Dame, it's common to live in the same dorm for all four years, and social media reports indicate that students are rather angry. This has led to vandalism already and will probably going to lead to significant vandalism from IPs and/or new users in the coming hours and days if the page is not protected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. The name "Zahm House" is a newer and more unofficial name and it may become the common name in the future, but there is no consensus that it is currently the common name. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Zahm Hall → Zahm House – Per WP:COMMONNAME,"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." The official name of the building is "Zahm Hall", which Notre Dame generally uses when referring to the building on its own websites, though in recent years it appears to be the case that both independent student newspapers (The Observer and The Irish Rover) refer to the dorm by the name of Zahm House, as does the building's official website. WNDU has referred to the dorm both as "Zahm Hall" and "Zahm House" in its recent reporting (its video report uses "Zahm House" while its text description uses "Zahm Hall"), while WSBT-TV has recently referred to the building exclusively as Zahm House. Since we should generally prefer to refer to the dorm by the name that is most commonly used, and the name that is most commonly used by reliable, independent sources is "Zahm House", I believe that the title of this article should be changed to Zahm House and that the page should be moved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the official name. It is the ones that has been used throughout its history, it's the one that can be found in all the archival material and official material. Also, the House moniker only has begun recently (2003) and is disparaged by some, including the administration. But more importantly, we should follow RS. The South Bend Tribune uses "Zahm Hall" [1]. The Observer and Rover don't count because they are not independent. Eccekevin (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME policy states that we should prefer the name that is most commonly used. There may have been names that historically have been more commonly used, but it appears to be the case that the common name has changed. We also don't need to defer to Notre Dame's administration on this; they set the official name, but we should prefer the common name. Furthermore, WSBT-TV is independent, as is WNDU, and both The Observer and The Irish Rover are editorially independent from the university. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Observer and the Rover are editorially independent, but are not considered independent as RS per Wiki policies as they are affiliates (trsut me,as you know I've had my fair share of debates on Notre Dame hall notability). But as you said WNDU uses "Hall" (they only used House in the graphics on the video and text seems more legitimate since videos are done on the spot). And the South Bend Tribune, likely the most RS for the area, uses Hall. ABC57 also using ZAhm Hall here, for example. Using "Hall", we also have the Chicago Tribune here, the Hoosier Times here, SlapTheSign here. Eccekevin (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSSM, student media might not carry as much weight in notability discussions, which appears to be what you are describing above. That is different than their qualification as a reliable source or an independent source; WP:RSSM states that reputable student publications are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. Reputable student media outlets should not be discounted in determining the common name that is used to refer to the article's subject. And, it very well might be the case that student media is the type of media that most commonly reports on the Hall itself. There are national sources, such as the National Catholic Reporter, that have referred to the rector of the dorm as the rector of "Zahm House". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but because they are student outlets, they also can be seen as less objective. Many of the articles for example were Viewpoints written by people in Zahm, hence cannot be takes as unbiased. And the fact that there is no internal consistency betrays that 'Hall' vs 'House' often depends on the student writing the piece. External news outlets can be seen as more objective in this regard. Also, I think that given the current situation, it might be worth watching events unfold before making major changes to the page. Eccekevin (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't fair to the truth of the situation to frame the title of "Zahm House" as being largely dependent upon the residents of the dorm writing opinion pieces. The Observer has repeatedly used the term in news coverage, and I don't see any evidence that the writers of these stores all (or even mostly) live in Zahm (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13). It appears to be the case that even the dorm's rector (a priest, at that!) has been telling a national Catholic paper that he works in "Zahm House". And, internal documents used by the dorm to welcome freshmen also have used the name of "Zahm House." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but there's also the issue of WP:RECENTISM. Ever since the whole debacle happened, there's been a lot of discussion framed in terms of Zahm House. But in line with WP:RECENTISM, we have to take a bigger picture look at the quality of sources. Fore example, this very year saw the publication of Notre Dame: A History, written by an ex Zahm rector. In this source, which is of the best quality for ND related topics since it is an academic book, there's no trace of 'Zahm House'. The 'house' moniker started in 2003. So while it might be more used amongst current students, it's most likely not used by alumni, which outnumber students. Similarly, it is not used by administration or most independent publications, or academic materials. Hence, I don't think it's fair to even say Zahm House is a COMMONNAME, I think it's mostly been a recent usage that has additionally garnered controversy. Solely relying on very recent materials is not the best option in my opinion, nor the one in line with policy. Eccekevin (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Zahm House"

@Eccekevin: I don't understand why you're removing the alternative name of the building from the lead. If it's a historical name (and I'd like to see a source that affirmatively says that the name is historical), then I believe it should still be kept in the lead and marked as a historical name. I don't think removing it altogether is in line with the manual of style, nor in line with how public reporting continues to refer to the dorm. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The monicker Zahm House refers to the community that lived there for decades, not really to the building itself. The official name is Zahm Hall since its founding, and has never been Zahm House. That was simply the way its residents refered to it. For example, the public reporting you linked talks about Bill Daley as rector of Zahm House, but in the past. Now, no residents refer to it as Zahm House anymore, nor will in the future since Zahm Hall will likely not have residents for a while. I think we could mention it in the lede, but not as something of the present, and make it clear its not really an alternate name for the building itself, but rather for the dorm/community that lived there. Something like "until 2021, its residents referred to it as Zahm House. Eccekevin (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

But do you have a source that says that until 2021, its residents referred to it as Zahm House? I'd be totally OK with something like ("also historically referred to as Zahm House") if there's a reliable source that backs it up, but the continued use of the Moniker by The Observer would appear to cut against that. After all, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source. In the absence of such a published source, which you haven't provided thus far, I'd have a problem with omitting the alternative name that our the Manual of Style would have us include. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Observer links you mentioned once again is about the past (it talks about Fr. Daley, and how in the past he was a rector of Zahm, which does not exist anymore), so doesn't really count. And in general, the Observer is a student publication, so not really the best resource. You are asking me here to prove a negative, by proving that such name is not used anymore. I can ask you, can you find any independent source that still uses Zahm House? The name Zahm House is not currently used by reliable independent sources like the South Bend Tribune (which uses Hall), nor is used officially by the University. It was used uninformally by the Zahm community (and others on campus too), but with the ceased existence of said community, it is inaccurate to use to describe a building that houses other dorms and is officially only known as Zahm Hall.Eccekevin (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A source that says that the dorm was historically referred to as Zahm House by its residents, but is no longer referred to in that manner, would simply satisfy the WP:NOR and WP:V concern I brought up earlier—it is far from impossible to prove if it were true and reflected in reliable sources. Historically, there are sources that refer to the building as Zahm House, including the University's athletic department, the dorm's official website, the Daily Domer, the Notre Dame Club of Austin, WSBT, National Catholic Reporter, both student newspapers, and others. We have ample evidence that, as recently as this year, the dorm has been widely referred to as "Zahm House". And, even the photograph that you've taken and posted to commons includes a sign that appears to label the building as "Zahm House"; it doesn't appear to be an informal piece of wood schlepped together by the Zahm community and stuck there without the University's approval. I'm asking you to provide a reliable source that there indeed has been a change in how the dorm has been referred to. Absent a reliable source on this, I don't think that it would comply with Wikipedia's MOS to omit "Zahm House" from the line entirely, nor its policies to say that the moniker is historical in nature. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: "Zahm House" in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is in favour of option 1. There was no support for omitting "Zahm House" entirely (option 2), so the discussion boiled down to whether the present (option 1) or past tense (option 3) should be used. In short, the argument for option 3 was that the term is no longer used and the argument for option 1 was that there is no source explicitly verifying the former assertion and that using the past tense would consequently constitute WP:Original research. Based on the respective strengths of the arguments as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, the consensus for option 1 is clear; WP:No original research is a WP:Core content policy and the argument that using the past tense would be a violation thereof was not refuted or even really addressed. I will state for the record that if a reliable source that explicitly says that the term is no longer in use is located, this RfC should not have to be relitigated; a simple application of WP:Consensus can change should suffice. TompaDompa (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

---

How should the lead of this article begin?

• Option 1: "Zahm Hall, also known as Zahm House, is one of 32 residence halls..." (permalink)
• Option 2: "Zahm Hall is one of 32 residence halls..." (permalink)

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: "Zahm House" in lead

Note that the sign outside of the building says Zahm House. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Per MOS:ALTNAME, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. There is a wide range of sourcing, both from the University of Notre Dame and from external sources, that use the name "Zahm House" to refer to the dorm. These include The New York Daily News, the building's official website, The Daily Domer, an alumni profile by the Notre Dame Club of Austin, television news station WSBT, student newspaper The Irish Rover, a profile of the dorm's former rector in the National Catholic Reporter, and an August article from the other student newspaper The Observer (also see: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 etc.), official student magazine Scholastic, and a chapter in Black Domers: African-American Students at Notre Dame in Their Own Words. Even the current photograph that we use in the article has a nicely made wooden sign outside the building that says, "Zahm House", for Pete's sake. Zahm House is a significant alternate name, and it belongs in the lead as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: "Zahm Hall, previously also known by its residents as Zahm House, is one of 32 residence halls..." (permalink) or something to that effect. Zahm Hall was effectively closed in 2021, and the name Zahm House, which was uninformed and never official, was tied to the community that lived there. Since that community no longer exists, and the hall now is a swing hall that hosts Sorin Hall and eventually other communities, saying it is called Zahm House is inaccurate. I think this name, since it is no longer used, should be in the history section and not in the lede, but certainly not Option 1 that makes it seem it is still in use. Eccekevin (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The above is a classic example of original research gone awry. If the name is no longer used, surely there would be a source that directly says so. But alas, no such source is provided, because the name is apparently still in use. The editor above ignores that very August 2021 article that continues to use the name of "Zahm House". If we're going to relegate this to a historical heap, we best well have a source that says it's no longer in use, given the evidence of its continued use. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This is quite a logical leap. 1) for a relatively small institution like a dorm, you're unlikely to find a source saying that nickname is not in use 2) the article above, as mentioned before, talks about Zahm house of the past, which as pointed out above, was dissolved in 2021. All the official university statements in 2021 use 'Zahm hall', none use 'Zahm house'. This is also true for the South Bend Tribune. The nickname is mentioned in the article, but I would not use it in the first sentence since it is obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Making an assumption that the name is no longer used to refer to the building on the basis that a new group of individuals lives in the building doesn't seem to necessarily follow. If the building is truly no longer referred to as "Zahm House", then surely the name used to refer to that building would not continue to be used. The argument that "Zahm House" was dissolved lies upon a premise that "Zahm House" doesn't refer to the building itself, which is the subject of this article, but rather a community of people that live within the building. But, in that case, it would imply that the building itself was never commonly referred to as "Zahm House", which would lead us to excluding the moniker altogether. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per MOS:ALTNAME - per some of the sources given above, the secondary name seems important enough to be in the first sentence. Remagoxer ^(talk) 07:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. A comparison on Google Trends shows that "Zahm hall" and "Zahm house" appear almost equally over the last five years, and similarly in the few hits this year. Between that result, and my manual search for hits for each term, and the sources cited above, I'm seeing enough usage of "Zahm house" to warrant listing it as an alternate name and as a redirect to this article. I oppose "Option 3" suggested by Eccekevin. The first words of the article are an extremely limited and valuable commodity. Leads begin with alternate names because it is important for readers to immediately confirm whether this is the article they want, but we don't want to waste any of those the first few words adding non-critical explanations about alternate names. Any explanation or discussion of the "house" variant may be addressed in the body. It may in fact be noteworthy that "house" may tend to refer to the collective residents - but that would go in the body per my previous rationale. Alsee (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, this is a significant alternative name.--Droid I am (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per user:Eccekevin reasoning. It should state that it is called “Zahm Hall” but mention it was previously known as “Zahm House”. Leechjoel9 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The Observer has reverted to calling it exclusively Zahm Hall, underlining that once again Zahm House was a very specific name for the hall as it existed before 2020. I think it should be "previously known as Zahm House": in the lede, else it seems like it still is being called such. Eccekevin (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not how alternative names work. If the naming of the dorm is consistent within an article, and there are two alternative names, then why would we conclude they've stopped using one in favor of the other? This May article from the same student newspaper used "Zahm Hall" to refer to the dorm. Would it have been a stretch to have concluded in May that "Zahm House" was no longer a name in use on the basis of a single article in a student newspaper? As it turns out, yes it would have. After all, this June piece used "Zahm House" to refer to the dorm.

  The argument you're providing has the same fatal flaw. We can't just assert that an altname is no longer in current use on the basis of a single article in the student newspaper, especially when articles have recently been published using that very same altname. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the last month, three articles show up for "Zahm Hall" and none for "Zahm House". It's just another indication how Zahm House was indeed the name the community referred to it before being disbanded, but this has since changed. Saying it is currently "Zahm house" would be inaccurate.Eccekevin (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• That would be true if you ignore the history of the hall. The community that was tied to such name has been disbanded.Eccekevin (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

References

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22zahm+hall%22&biw=1807&bih=1013&tbs=qdr%3Am&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AOaemvLhZ15cSMd3yvZk44PLhyCzA-RvCQ%3A1634169196926&ei=bHFnYfWAOJrKtQbZgbrQBA&oq=%22zahm+hall%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i273k1j0i512k1l4j0i30k1l5.1587.2050.0.2282.4.4.0.0.0.0.65.238.4.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.238...0i7i30k1j0i7i10i30k1j0i13k1.0.4crYgrp7dTA

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.