Talk:Syracuse University

Amartya Sen

Mr. Sen the Nobel laureate is NOT an SU alumnus. To the clown who keeps on adding his name to the list, DON'T.

I moved the all-century basketball thing to the Syracuse University Orange article. It's too long and technical for this article. newkai

Eddie Storm

No page for Eddie Storm? Or for Wally, his very large dog which loved bananna yoghurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugong.is.good.tucker

Please help.

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

One - [1]

Two - [2]

Three - [3]

Four - [4]

Five - [5]

Six - [6]

Seven - [7]

Eight - [8]

Nine - [9]

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

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

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

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

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

Who does this sound like?

You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's uncalled for. There are 300 student organizations at Syracuse. [10] All of them have websites. Almost all of them have been written up in the newspaper at one time or another. Stating that this particular one is not notable enough to justify mention in the main Syracuse articles is not bias. Think of how big the article would be if all 300 of them were mentioned. NOTABLE organizations (meaning, organizations that someone outside of Syracuse thinks are important enough to write an article about) should be mentioned, but every school in the country has an LGBT center. Unless there's something special about this one, it really doesn't belong here. --B (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Student groups

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

disclosure note: copied from my talkpage

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

Founding

The last sentence in the first paragraph in this section -- recounting in colorful, speculative detail why Ezra Cornell did not locate his school in Syracuse -- seems irrelevant to this article on Syracuse University. Earlier edit as such reverted by Anon. Other thoughts on this? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation

Syracuse University has no affiliation with the Methodist Church anymore. Please see below:

http://www.princetonreview.com/SyracuseUniversity.aspx (under "Religious Affiliation" in the "At a Glance Section" it says NONE)

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/economics/university/profile/syracuse/721 (it says Religious Affiliation: Not Applicable)

http://www.cappex.com/colleges/Syracuse-University-196413 (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/syracuse-ny/syracuse-university-2882 (it says Religious Affiliation: N/A, not applicable)

http://www.campuscorner.com/new-york-colleges/syracuse-university.htm (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://www.venturescholar.org/portals/index.php?mid=191 (it says Religious Affiliation: No Preference or Affiliation)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.160.233 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check the official sources cited in the article along with the book source. Perhaps these tertiary organizations are not accurately informed. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above sources include US News & World Report and the Princeton Review. These are credible sources and national publications. Your sources do not explicitly state that the school is affiliated with the church. Your sources consider Syracuse to be part of the Methodist heritage because it was founded by the Methodist Church. This I agree with. However, it is no longer affiliated at the present time, as evidenced by multiple sources. Here are more sources that state Syracuse University has no religious affiliation:

http://collegeclicktv.com/videos?fr_chl=d4bb4c4032c00a2904b9909caa98002972314bd4

http://collegeprowler.com/syracuse-university/statistics/

http://www.enotes.com/syracuse-university-guide/

http://www.meritaid.com/meritScholarships/Syracuse-University-196413

Once again, your tertiary sources may not be informed. The International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities states that Syracuse is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. The official website for the United Methodist Church states that Syracuse is a "United Methodist school." Furthermore, a 2002 published book states that "Syracuse remains definitely Methodist." Please gain a consensus for removing the referenced information before altering the article. The sources I presented are official ones while yours are not. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are not "official." They are from a religious organization. I am an alumni of Syracuse University and I can definitely attest that Syracuse is not affiliated with the Methodist Church. You cannot discount my TEN SOURCES as incorrect just because you want to advance your religious agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.160.233 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My sources are indeed official and come from the organization in question. Please honor consensus and read WP:AGF. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are not "official" because they do not come from Syracuse University themselves. Your sources are as much tertiary as mine. The organization in question here is Syracuse University, not the United Methodist Church. I actually called the Syracuse University Archives myself at (315) 443-3335 and they said the University is no longer affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Anyone is free to contact the University Archives to find out for themselves. Their website is http://archives.syr.edu/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.160.233 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? I just called the same number and the attendant stated that she was aware that the university was founded by Methodists and will inquire about the status of the current affiliation and would get back to me on the details. When I hear from them, I will let you know. In the meantime, the article will present the authoritative information as is. You should make yourself aware of Wikipedia policy and understand that removing information without establishing a consensus constitutes vandalism; it is for this reason that your edits were reverted and you received a warning from an administrator. In the future, take the time to establish a consensus before removing longstanding information from an article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will not touch the article until a consensus has been reached. However, once you do hear back from them, please let us know. If they say the university is no longer affiliated with the church, then that should be taken as authoritative.

I have also contacted the United Methodist Church at InfoServ and have asked them to explain the relationship between Syracuse University and the United Methodist Church. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see below topic. An official from Syracuse University has requested an edit. Syracuse University's religious affiliation is nonsectarian. Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines "nonsectarian" as "not affiliated with or restricted to a particular religious group." Please see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsectarian. Syracuse University's official webpage indicates the University as nonsectarian. Please see: http://coursecatalog.syr.edu/introduction.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.160.233 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.230.73.104, 16 June 2010

{{editprotected}} The information listed for Syracuse University's religious affiliation is incorrect. As a duly appointed representative of Syracuse University who is intimately familiar with its history and current status, I can tell you definitively that while it was founded as a Methodist institution, it has been nonsectarian since 1920. The correct wording for Religious Affiliation is "nonsectarian." An appropriate footnote for that would reference is W. Freeman Galpin, Syracuse University, Volume Two: The Growing Years, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press 1960. Chapter 24, "The Sectarian Issue and Charter Revision," definitively describes the process by which the University charter was revised to declare definitively that "corporation [Board of Trustees] shall be non-sectarian" (page 419). The University by-laws were amended that same year, 1920, to reflect this change in the charter. It is essential that this affiliation be corrected in Wikipedia and the existing footnote 2 be deleted. Please contact me directly if there is any question or concern about this (Peter Englot, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, Syracuse University, <redacted>).

128.230.73.104 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some kind of source for this correction? While I appreciate that it must be obvious to you, original research ins't allowed here and all information has to be verifiable. You might be better waiting it out until the protection is lifted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they did provide a source. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, here are 10 sources that state Syracuse University has no religious affiliation. Two of these sources include US News & World Report and the Princeton Review, which are highly reputable national publications and organizations. Please see the below links:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/syracuse-ny/syracuse-university-2882 (it says Religious Affiliation: N/A, not applicable)

http://www.princetonreview.com/SyracuseUniversity.aspx (under "Religious Affiliation" in the "At a Glance Section" it says NONE)

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/economics/university/profile/syracuse/721 (it says Religious Affiliation: Not Applicable)

http://www.cappex.com/colleges/Syracuse-University-196413 (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://www.campuscorner.com/new-york-colleges/syracuse-university.htm (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://www.venturescholar.org/portals/index.php?mid=191 (it says Religious Affiliation: No Preference or Affiliation)

http://collegeclicktv.com/videos?fr_chl=d4bb4c4032c00a2904b9909caa98002972314bd4 (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://collegeprowler.com/syracuse-university/statistics/ (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://www.enotes.com/syracuse-university-guide/ (it says Religious Affiliation: None)

http://www.meritaid.com/meritScholarships/Syracuse-University-196413

Furthermore, Syracuse University's own official website describes the University as nonsectarian: Please see here: http://coursecatalog.syr.edu/introduction.aspx. Merriam-Websters dictionary, one of the definitive dictionaries of the English language, defines "nonsectarian" as "not affiliated with or restricted to a particular religious group." See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsectarian. Therefore, Syracuse University is not affiliated with any religious group.

Lastly, do a Google Search for religious affiliation for different Methodist-affiliated universities like Duke University or American University. If you type in "duke university religious affiliation" or "american university religious affiliation" in Google, Google tells you at the very top that these universities are affiliated with the Methodist Church. See: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=duke+university+religious+affiliation

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+university+religious+affiliation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

However, if you do the same search for "Syracuse University religious affiliation" in Google, it says "Syracuse University religious affiliation — None." Please see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=syracuse+university+religious+affiliation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.160.233 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please reconcile the apparent differences between the institution's official stance and the other sources that have been cited that appear to contradict this stance? Are these sources out-of-date, confused, outright wrong, or being misinterpreted?

The majority of the evidence presented thus far seems to support the institution's official stance. However, although I am sympathetic to the institution I am not willing to immediately cede the issue merely because a university official has presented the institution's official stance. This is not a university publication and we are not beholden to their interpretations, standards, or demands. ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)