Talk:Georgetown University

The problem with Catholic in the first sentence

This was discussed before, but two weeks ago the adjective "Catholic" found its way back into the first sentence of the article. The problem is, a Catholic school is operated by the Catholic Church. Georgetown is not. Georgetown is run by a board of directors. That's why we wrote that sentence saying "Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit-affiliated institution..." because is a more accurate way to state this fact. Even more accurate is to say that Georgetown is a member of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, which is what we do in the "Jesuit tradition" subsection. I do want to tread lightly here, as the idea of taking the "Catholic" out of Georgetown plays into this narrative that Georgetown is becoming less Catholic, but Wikipedia is about being accurate with the article's subject, I do feel "Catholic university" is less accurate than our alternatives.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Patrickneil: While I've seen you steward this page diligently over time, I believe you're mistaken here. A "Catholic university" (see Catholic higher education) is not necessarily one that is governed by some component of the Church hierarchy (although it can be). Perhaps you might be thinking of a pontifical university. According to Canon law 803 §3, one of the three ways in which a university can be considered a "Catholic school" is through recognition by the "competent ecclesiastical authority," i.e. in this case, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. Therefore, even though the university is neither owned nor governed by the Archdiocese of Washington, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Society of Jesus, universal Church, or any other ecclesiastical body, it is still a Catholic university. For this reason, I support including "Catholic" in the first sentence. Ergo Sum 02:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but this is no different than how any other Jesuit school (Boston College, Fordham, Holy Cross, etc.) lists their school in the first sentence. All of those schools have similar governance, so I guess was just looking to be consistent with their format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.85.196 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Georgetown's Catholic affiliation is adequately explained in the introduction and there is no need to label it "Catholic" in the first few words of the first sentence; it sounds parochial and does not accurately reflect the reality. The Catholic-affiliated schools that are often given as examples are very different from Georgetown in terms of mentality, student body, and identity. For instance, Notre Dame student body is about 80% Catholic, whereas Georgetown is less than half Catholic. Notre Dame has "47 chapels on campus, including one in every residence hall"; Georgetown has only one full-sized chapel (Dahlgren) and two small chapels (prayer rooms) in Copley Hall and the Hospital. No matter what some people wish or how some people may try to twist it, the fact is that most of us Hoyas are not devout followers of any religion and we are not here because of or in spite of Georgetown's religious affiliation. We are here because of the strength of our programs and schools, including many that are housed in buildings built by alumni of different faiths (i.e. business school). Most universities of Georgetown's age, size, and caliber were once founded by clergy, but they grew out of it and we don't call them "[Such and such religion] universities". If Fordham and Boston College want to rest their entire image and identity on being Catholic, perhaps it's because they are crappy schools and they have nothing else to talk about.--Sargentpeale (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

The university prominently identifies itself as Catholic right on its own homepage: "Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university." Additionally, the article's lead sentence when reviewed and promoted to Featured Article status included this adjective ("Georgetown University is a private, Roman Catholic, research university, located in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood."). So it appears that the subject strongly identifies with this part of its identity and the material was there when the article went through our most stringent review process. I acknowledge that consensus can change and that the review process for Featured Article status has changed quite a bit over time so we can certainly revisit this issue.

(During this discussion, I recommend avoiding slamming other colleges and universities; it's crass and it doesn't advance your argument. In fact, it hinders it a bit by allowing other editors to take your arguments less seriously.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not questioning that Georgetown is a Catholic university with a Catholic heritage. In fact, there is already a paragraph dedicated to this in the article introduction, which clearly describes the nature and extent of the school's religious affiliation and that of its student body. Adding the word "Catholic" in the very first sentence is superfluous and irrelevant, given everything else that is already said. Also, I believe you have taken Georgetown's self-identification a bit out of context--we should read the entire description on their website, which says:

Georgetown University is one of the world’s leading academic and research institutions, offering a unique educational experience that prepares the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world. Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. We provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. Students are challenged to engage in the world and become men and women in the service of others, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of the community.[1]

Looking at the school's own description, it is clear that being Catholic is A part of modern Georgetown's identity, not THE part. It does not necessitate the inclusion of word "Catholic" in the beginning of the very first line of an article, especially as the introduction and information box are already very clear about the school's affiliation. I am starting to suspect that the repeated insertion of "Catholic university" in the first sentence is entirely agenda-driven. --Sargentpeale (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

@Sargentpeale: We're trying to have a mature conversation here; please don't weigh in if your contribution is to give your personal evaluation of the situation (which, I might add, is woefully uninformed). Our assessment of Georgetown's Catholicity is irrelevant. We're only tasked with faithfully representing what reliable sources have to say about the matter, and it is clear that they regard Georgetown as a Catholic school; plain and simple. As for how Georgetown describes itself, that will necessarily be biased in favor of how the school wishes to promote itself. That is not how Wikipedia describes universities. E.g. Georgetown does not describe itself as a "private research university," but that is how reliable sources accurately describe it. Likewise, virtually every reliable and neutral source describes Georgetown as inter alia a "Catholic university," in line with other fundamental, defining characteristics. There is no reason that is not how it should described here.Ergo Sum 06:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My observations are very common sense. On the other hand, the repeated and inexplicable insertion of the word "Catholic", as this article as seen in the past few weeks, is immature and agenda-driven. Georgetown's religious background is clearly articulated in the introduction. Calling it a Catholic university or a Methodist university is meaningless and does nothing to actually describe the school or its religious affiliation any more than it is already described in one of the leading paragraphs.--Sargentpeale (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I understand the points you are making, but the intention of the first line of the wikipedia summary is to educate those about the basic facts related to the university. Georgetown is a catholic university, plain and simple. It's board structure and/or student body is irrelevant. Every other catholic college I have seen on here listed "private" and "catholic" among its descriptive phrases in summarizing the school. To me if anything, there is an agenda here to remove the catholic piece, which I don't understand as it is how the school describes itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.39.73 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sargentpeale: You're entitled to hold and share your opinion, even if you're going about in ways that are unproductive and unlikely to convince other editors. You're not entitled to edit war to enforce your opinion on others by continually reverting to your preferred version of the article. Stop it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The introduction already says that "Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit-affiliated institution of higher education in the United States"--enough said. There is absolutely no reason to also say that it is a "Catholic research university" in the very first sentence. Georgetown is a research university that happens to be catholic, it is not a catholic university that happens to do research. The religion is not central to Georgetown's existence and we should not mislead readers into thinking so.--Sargentpeale (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I want to jump back in here to make one point. I don't think it's inaccurate to use the shorthand term "Catholic university" and that Georgetown's website isn't incorrect when they boast of being the "the nation’s oldest Catholic university." My contention is that leaving it out of the first sentence, and later saying "Catholic affiliated university" is the more accurate version, and on Wikipedia that matters. Georgetown's website isn't held to a WP:V standard. I feel that saying "Catholic university" is more likely to be misinterpreted as meaning "pontifical university." Also, in previous discussions, we brought up the issue of overloading adjectives, and that a "private Catholic research university" could be misinterpreted as a university that researches Catholicism; also that "private Catholic" was a redundant phrase given the lack of "public Catholic" schools (I think there might be some high schools in the Philippines, but if its ultimately run by the church, then its not state run, and vice-versa). Per MOS:FIRST, we should have a "concise definition" and avoid redundancy and overloading. There's plenty of space to get into the weeds about "competent ecclesiastical authorities," 1805, and the Jesuit order later in the article.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying makes perfect sense. Calling it a "Catholic research university" in the first sentence is a very simplistic opening line, one that is prone to misinterpretation by readers who are not very familiar with Georgetown, or the distinction between Catholic/Pontifical schools. The article should start with a generic opening line and elaborate on religious affiliation in the second paragraph, as it stands now.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

The opening line of any encyclopedia article is going to be oversimplistic; if that weren't the case then we wouldn't need an encyclopedia article for that topic! That's why we have (a) the rest of the article and (b) links to other related articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also I want to second @ElKevbo: in asking editors not to edit war over this. We can discuss this one and find a compromise. Would moving "Georgetown in the oldest Catholic..." up to the second or third sentence help, for example?

It looks like the article was actually stable for a long time until certain Daveg023 showed up and starting inserting Catholicism into everything without so much as an edit summary or explanation, and he is the one who keeps doing that. I'm not entirely clear on rules in these instances but as a reasonable person, I would think that when a user like Daveg023 is trying to change something that was previously established, he should be the one to ask around and at least provide reasons for given changes.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Also, I don't think it is necessary to move "Georgetown in the oldest Catholic..." up to the second sentence. It is a historical context that looks perfectly fine in the second paragraph. If our readers don't have the attention span to read a couple of sentences and reach the second paragraph, then they probably don't care enough to wonder whether Georgetown is Catholic or not.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Again, please don't edit war, if someone else is reverting, don't stoop to their level. But yes, it is worth reminding editors that the article has read "private research university" for about the last 7 years, based on discussions way back in 2011/2012. Without much fanfare, I reverted Catholic being inserted once back in 2015 because I do feel that changing a prior consensus about the top should be discussed first. That said, "content age" is not an argument one way or the other, so I do think a new consensus can be made about this wording. Did anyone want to present a solution to the issue I raised about the potential overloading of adjectives that adding "Catholic" creates, for example?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The rationale behind editing Catholic is in the opening line is that when a user does a simple Google search on the school, the first sentence is what shows up, with or without going to the Wikipedia page. The fact that we have agreed that being a Catholic school is an unquestioned characteristic of the school (and how all fellow Jesuit schools describe themselves), and how the school themselves identifies, I can only think that the fight to suppress this from the opening line is being driven by some ulterior motive. I just don't understand the passion from holding it out of the opening sentence, as regardless of how it has appeared for the prior years, the first sentence serves as much more important in google searches now then before, and not including that adjective seems consciously misleading to me. I assure am not operating on some hidden agenda here, but just looking to be consistent on how fellow institutions describe themselves, and see no reason why Georgetown should be different. --daveg023

Again, I don't wish to open a forum on whether or not this article's subject is quote-unquote Catholic either "inter alia", as an "unquestioned characteristic", or by their own definition; all we want to do is figure out how to best word a sentence to accurately reflect facts. There's no winning, and the only passion we should be having is about the English language and encyclopedic style. I really don't want to bite, but saying "we have agreed" is not the same is building a consensus with a compromise solution. While one could list similar Wikipedia university articles that don't put religious affiliation in the first sentence, what other articles do is something that shouldn't affect this one, nor should what a site like Google (or Baidu or Yandex for that matter) chooses to do. I understand you see it as misleading not to include Catholic, my contention above was that it was misleading to include it, when we can easily say "oldest Catholic affiliated" in the next sentence, if we go that way.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess my only counter to the "compromise" you are proposing is that the first sentence in Wikipedia is what shows up when anyone in the world does a Google search for the university, so the second sentence is just as buried as the fourth paragraph. That is my issue with that as a compromise, and I don't understand how would be misleading to have the adjective as part of the first sentence. I am not looking to make this a bigger issue than it already has become, but just don't really see the rationale or motivation to not include it from my perspective.

Daveg023, so you're basically admitting that the reason you keep inserting the word "Catholic" in the first sentence is to promote Georgetown as a Catholic school on Google?! That is not a legitimate reason to modify a perfectly good introduction. In fact, while Georgetown IS a Catholic/Jesuit school, it is questionable whether our Catholic/Jesuit affiliation is the school's most important attribute, so much so that it has to be the VERY FIRST thing that comes up in Google. As a Hoya, I personally think it is an insult to our centuries-old university to suggest that our antiquated, and by all standards rather tenuous religious affiliation is our most essential attribute, one that HAS to come before all else. Even the school's own description does not do that. Much of what you have written so far, including the trivia section, reads like a cheesy promotional material presented from a single perspective. Please stop promoting this oversimplified and misleading material about Georgetown.--Sargentpeale (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

It's pretty clear in what you just wrote, your own biases come across. Regardless, I have neither the time nor energy to engage in such a debate with you on this, on something frankly that really doesn't matter. I appreciate your passion and stewardship, and wish you the best. --daveg023

Alumni paragraph in Intro

I think we might have too much information on alumni in the introduction. It's an entire paragraph at the moment, which has been expanded by three (or maybe just one) anonymous IP users recently, so I'm not sure who to contact about the edits. MOS:INTRO suggests that editors should avoid being overly specific about the articles sections, and should also avoid peacock terms, which is also a problem I have with sentences like "Georgetown is also a top feeder school for careers in finance." In my opinion, we can get away with two sentences: One specific sentence with two or three names, i.e. Bill Clinton and Antonin Scalia, and one general sentence to note foreign service and government professionals. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see some back and forth editing going on about including "2 U.S. presidents" as alumni, namely whether Lyndon Baines Johnson should be included. It's a bit semantic to argue how long an individual should attend to be an alumnus or alumna, but regardless, I just don't think his semester is important enough to be included in the intro section. Bill Clinton meanwhile, attended full time, graduated, and has made repeated visits back to campus, to basketball games, etc, making it part of his biography and so should be named in the lead. Again, I still feel there's overall too much on alumni in the lead section so any paring down is great.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Patrickneil and Patrick: So I'm new to this, but yes the issue is on whether LBJ counts as an alum or not, because he attended for just over a semester before dropping out. I believe he does, and someone else believes he doesn't. First, as I said in my edit notes, there is an established distinction between a graduate and an alum. Someone is a graduate if they attend a university and graduate, and someone is an alum if they attend at all- no one is claiming that LBJ is a graduate. This is why dropouts like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (Musk completed his degree at wharton but dropped out of stanford- so an alumnus of both but just a graduate of Wharton) are always counted amongst a school's notable alumni. If you go to the notable alumni pages themselves, they will include these people- as ours includes LBJ- and put an asterisk or something saying that they are alums but not graduates. This is why universities do notable *alumni* pages and not notable *graduates* pages. LBJ is literally the definition of a non-graduate alum. It's the definition, and this is verified by Google, and additionally it's the widely accepted practice among universities to count dropouts and the like as alums- the only exception to this rule, and even this varies by university, is if they were expelled. Just look at their pages- stanford would literally have under half the billionaires that it currently has in it's notable alumni if graduating were a requirement to be an alumni, because so many dropped out to start tech companies and whatnot. I really don't know what additional evidence I can possibly give. And in LBJ's case in particular, he loved Georgetown- gave money, spoke here on several occasions, and even sent his younger daughter here. There would be a debate to be had if he'd been expelled, but even then that would depend on the school. There isn't really a debate here, and I hate to be difficult but I have to stand by this. ~Jack, 30 July 2019

Hi Jack, welcome. Feel free to check out our FAQ for new users. I'll just say that if your edit on Wikipedia is reverted, its usually best to come here, to an article's talk page to hash it out, rather than edit warring by putting the text back. I definitley understand that argument for a broad definitin of alum, and I think there's room for a debate about that. My own contention is that, even if you consider him an alum, his brief law school attendence isn't notable enough to be included in the paragraphs at the top where article's topic is summarized and broadly definied. I have gone ahead and added a sentence about LBJ to the article's Alumni section, which I think is a more apropriate place to note it. Does that work as a compromise?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, I love how logical and thought out your opinions, and the opinions of many others on here are- it's refreshing. This is going to be long because I want to say what I'm thinking now rather than go back and forth. So my perspective is that we have two presidents as alumni, and so the number in the intro should be two. I believe the intro paragraph for notable alumni should be a broad sweep of things. I agree with you- everyone knows Clinton is way more notable than LBJ as it pertains to being a Hoya- he actually graduated and made a much bigger deal out of coming here and all that. But then do we go to Stanford and tell them to cut their billionaire count in half because you now have to graduate to be counted as an alum on their page? Several of the billionaire they count in their intro didn't even last that first semester- including Elon Musk, who is basically their poster child, who dropped out literally under two days after arriving on campus to found Paypal. Or do we tell Princeton they can no longer count JFK as one of their presidents- which they do, and in their intro- because he transferred to Harvard after freshman year? I think if we have two presidents who were alumni, we count them both, and that's what this intro paragraph is for- it's a broad summary. If people want to read about individual presidents or billionaires or whatnot, they can do that by going to the sources or whatever else for particular research- that's what our alumni section is for, the specifics! I think putting a sentence or two about LBJ in the alumni section is a fantastic idea, those curious about our 2 presidents can go down and learn that LBJ dropped out in his first year of GU law school to join a political campaign- a job which he actually got through a prof at Georgetown- and that Bill graduated as an undergrad right before becoming a Rhodes Scholar. Also, not that it really matters, but this is what every other school does- they count everyone in their intro, as I gave two examples of further up in this paragraph.

Personally I believe the best thing to do is to get the number correctly in the intro- which is supposed to be a broad general sweep of our notable alumni, and then do what you're talking about and, in the alumni section- where it's supposed to be more specific- devote a sentence or two to LBJ in which you say that he attended but did not graduate. Also, if the link to our notable alumni works, which is does, they can also use that to check out the two Hoya presidents are. Does this make sense to you?

I also think that apart from this whole debate, having two presidents as alums is very different than having one. From an optics perspective, I personally think it looks bad to put specific names in the intro section- it implies that we have few enough important people that we have to mention the ones we do have. When we put specific names there, it almost sends the message that they're all we have- and this is far from the truth. Additionally from an optics perspective, saying "2 US Presidents" looks a heck of a lot better than 1, especially if you call that one by name. Having one president could be a fluke, having two is no fluke. Obviously these points are apart from my main argument, but worthy of consideration. Look, it's up to you in the end, because you're more established than I and have much more authority here, but I strongly believe we should count both in the intro. I think it is both truer and it looks better. This paragraph, and the two preceding it, were both me. ~Jack, 30 July 2019

"From an optics perspective"? "It looks better"? " "it almost sends the message that they're all we have"? "2 US Presidents" looks a heck of a lot better than 1"? Do you think you're on a marketing team writing promotional material for Georgetown? This is an encyclopedia, so please take a few minutes to read the essay on neutral point of view, which describes one of the five fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Also, please sign your comments on Talk pages with 4 tildes (i.e. ~ 4 times) at the end, which automatically inserts a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You know, I was unsure about whether to put that last part and almost refrained from doing so, because even though I expressly stated that it was, and I quote, "apart from the whole debate" and "apart from my main argument" and made so painfully clear that it was not my point, I knew someone might intentionally fixate on that and ignore what I'm actually saying- and that's exactly what you did. I mean seriously- you addressed nothing in my actual argument which is literally based on the dictionary definition of the word "alum" and the facts of how any other wikipedia page on a college is written. You just tried to be insulting and accuse me of using this as an opportunity to "market" Georgetown when my entire actual argument is based on logic, reason, and the facts. As you said- this is an encyclopedia, so we have to be neutral, unbiased, and objective. Google the definition of "alum". LBJ is an alum. I have heard no compelling reason whatsoever to refrain from including him as such, because that's what he is. 2601:806:4300:16F1:75FE:4EF8:1BC6:C75F (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Jack

Just so you know, the first result from Googling the definition of "alum", as you suggested, returns "a colorless astringent compound that is a hydrated double sulfate of aluminum and potassium, used in solution medicinally and in dyeing and tanning." The 2nd is: "either of two colorless or white crystalline double sulfates of aluminum used in medicine internally as emetics and locally as astringents and styptics". It is not correct to call LBJ an alum "because that's what he is"; in fact, it's downright demeaning to smear a former U.S. President with that label. Shame on you. 207.62.246.172 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hahahaha touche, I actually laughed there. That is fair- please do not google "alum". I used alum as short for alumnus/alumnae but did not realize it was in fact it's own word- that's actually funny. But back to settling this- Google "what counts as alumni". Even better, you can look up Wikipedia's very own article on what it means to be an alumnus/alumnae- it's one of the first things to pop up upon searching this and actually solves this dispute pretty soundly. In fact save yourself the trouble, I can quote it for you: "An alumnus or an alumna of a college, university, or other school is a former student who has either attended or graduated in some fashion from the institution. The word is Latin and simply means "student". The plural is alumni for men and alumnae for women. The term is not synonymous with "graduate"; one can be an alumnus without graduating. (Burt Reynolds, alumnus but not graduate of Florida State, is an example.) An alumnus can also be and is more recently expanded to include a former employee of an organization and it may also apply to a former member, contributor, or inmate." That's the intro paragraph, straight quoted from Wikipedia. It was almost written for this very dispute- one may as well swap LBJ with Burt Reynolds, and Georgetown with Florida State. I don't mean to be rude here and I don't want to revert anyone's edits, but this has gone on too long. Can we put this ridiculous argument to rest now? It's getting tiresome. I don't think any of us want to be doing this. 2601:806:4300:16F1:75FE:4EF8:1BC6:C75F (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Jack

I brought this up at the start of this discussion I really have problems with the sentence "Georgetown's notable alumni include 2 U.S. Presidents, 15 living billionaires, dozens of cabinet members in the US and abroad, and more current international royalty and heads of state than any university in the world" because every claim has some issue, and several simply aren't true. Wikipedia is built on true, verifiable sources. Georgetown does not have the most sitting U.S. Senators because Harvard has 15, and 15 is more than 7, and therefore we can't include a sentence that says "Georgetown has more graduates serving in the United States Senate than any other university." Find a source that says otherwise and we can consider it.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, my request for page protection can be found here. Ergo Sum 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White supremacist whitewashing

I would question the racist removal of content related to the Indigenous history and present of Georgetown University and the erasure of the Native history of the land and current struggles that Indigenous students and faculty are engaged in. Adding information about Native people is apparently "POV". It is apparently not "POV" to have a settler-colonial white-supremacist lense, however. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome. I think we can and should assume good faith in each others edits here. Can we agree on that? I think there is room in the article to mention Native American history as far as it pertains specifically to the article's topic, and not just to the city or country the subject exists in. Notable clubs at the school can also be mentioned, provided there is reliable sourcing. Are there specific sentences you'd like to raise as point-of-view?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I object to the racist notion that a Native American perspective is a "point of view", but Eurocentric settler-colonial erasure is objectivity. The other editor removed ALL references to Native American history and claims that the Piscataway are irrelevant to the institution that sits upon their homeland. The indigenous people who say directly otherwise have been deemed irrelevant and all reference to them removed. And this isn't a POV? Of course it is. I further object to the racist erasing phrasing of "the Native American tribes that once inhabited the area", even though the Piscataway still exist and live in the area and are students of the institution. And I would also object to the racist notion that a critique of racism is an attack in bad faith, but the actual racism itself is nothing but neutral and not to be noticed or subject to scrutiny. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

POV in recent addition of Native American activism

(Note: I was edit conflicted and did not see the above section). Bohemian Baltimore recently added text about a (new?) Native American student group's activism. I modified the wording of that text to be less POV, as it tracked much too closely to the puffery that political/activist organizations use, and quite clearly was pushing a POV. My edits were then reverted and a POV tag added to this Featured Article, with an edit summary that my edits were racist and white supremacist. (Pretty sure that's the opposite of AGF). Fearing that an edit war will ensue without talk page elaboration, I am opening up the discussion. I propose the following:

• The student group and its activities are not nearly sufficiently notable to be included in the article. An organization/event/cause does not become worthy of inclusion in an article simply because it has been written about in one article of a minor newspaper. This is an overview article of a 200-year-old university that has dozens, probably hundreds, of students groups that petition the university for all sorts of things. Therefore, mention of it should be removed unless some future events cause it to become worthy of inclusion.
• The POV tag should be removed because a quibble about the phrasing of two newly added sentences in a lengthy Featured Article does not rise to the level of a POV in the article, warranting a tag.
• Because it has been added in relation to the above edits, Bohemian Baltimore's addition of text regarding Native tribes' inhabtance of the DC/Maryland area should also be removed until consensus regarding their phrasing/content can be reached here.

Pinging Patrickneil, who has also been involved. Ergo Sum 04:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, yes, very much agree about assume good faith. And playing the Nazi card is also an argument to avoid. I agree the the POV tag is impropper, those sorts of banners are for highly controversial subjects where lots of editors see issues. And I agree that this is not a geography article, and that the mentions about the Piscataway would be better on a geography article, say the history section of the Georgetown neighborhood article. I already added it to the subarticle Campuses of Georgetown University the History section there. I can also see the aguement that the NASC's existance is already covered by the sentence "Georgetown has many additional groups representing national, ethnic, and linguistic interests." But we have a pretty low bar with regards to the activism section. There's a permanent flag at the top of this talk page to remind editors to watch the section for POV content, but otherwise I lean towards inclusionism and waiting to see what happens. I will say it would be much more notable if the school responded to the group's demands, so the sentence could go "the group demanded [this], and the school said [that]."-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Patrick. I agree that there should be a low bar, but I think that bar has to be higher than merely existing; otherwise, every single transient student group could be included. If this organization provoked a university response that was covered by the media or something similar, then I would say include. But, absent that, I can't see a reason to mention it. Ergo Sum 14:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As for the geography bit, I agree that it's not appropriate in this article. We don't talk about US history or British history or Maryland history unless it actually pertains specifically to the university. The fact that these tribes lived there prior to European arrival doesn't specifically pertain to the university. Ergo Sum 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to it, and a sufficient period of time has lapsed, I have gone ahead and removed the aforementioned content. Ergo Sum 17:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"College" is not a proper noun

Ergo Sum has begun an edit war to insist that "college" be capitalized in this article as a proper noun. First, Ergo Sum is an administrator and knows not to edit war. Second, "college" is common noun when it's used by itself and not part of a title.

@Ergo Sum: Please revert your edit while we discuss this. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with ElKevbo - not a proper noun in those instances, just a description, therefore no capital letter. If a proper noun were in use, there would be no need for the definite article: "All majors in [the college / Georgetown] are open as minors to students in [the college / Georgetown]..." -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)