Talk:San Francisco State University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Faisal bin Musa'id bin Abdul Aziz

Why isnt this guy under the list for famous alumni? I consider assassinating the king of Saudi Arabia a pretty notable act.

The University's Sources Confirm A Paid Investigation

Skew-T argued that the sources I cited did not indicate that SFSU paid for the investigation into the Akom controversy. However, page 5 of the investigative report reads:

"The Hon. Willie L. Brown is the former Mayor of San Francisco and Speaker of the California Assembly. Louise H. Renne is the former City Attorney of San Francisco. The investigators assigned to the task were Nikki Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP and George M. Cothran, a licensed private investigator employed by the same law firm. Ms. Hall and Mr. Cothran reported to Ms. Renne and Mr. Brown throughout their investigation."

The administration "commissioned" an investigation by two private citizens and a private law firm that does not work for free. Lets use some logical deduction here:

1) Private law firms do not work for free.

2) Work was done on behalf of the SFSU administration.

3) The work of this private firm is cited in the report as the material basis of this investigation.

What more evidence is needed to confirm that the SFSU administration paid for the investigation? It may Now that I have exposed this quote on the talk page of this article, I would not be surprised if that paragraph suddenly goes "missing" from the official PDF file on the University's web site.

R33tr33t 13:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Private law firms don't do work for free? Have you heard of "pro bono?" As for Willie Brown, he is not only a private citizen, he is an alumnus, so it would not surprise me if he were to offer his services for free to his alma matter. And Louise Renne seems to be involved in many volunteer community activities. While it is certainly plausible that the investigation was paid for by the university, I just haven't seen evidence of it.
You mention that it is immaterial whether it was paid for on the university's behalf... but then why does it matter that it was paid for at all? It seems like there is a specific POV by insisting on the importance of these assumptions. If it was paid for on the university's behalf, which following your burger analogy you seem to admit could be possible, then it would not be true that the university itself paid for it, and the text should go back to "the university commissioned" the report.
As for the racial mention, I'm still unsure why the fact that Willie Brown is black is stated. Are you implying that because of it he cannot be objective? Or that it is a PR move by the university to hire someone of the same race as Akom? Perhaps this is important, but I'm missing why. Also, you said "Brown's blackness is as material as Akom's," but then again, the article doesn't actually say Akom is black. --skew-t 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've left the assertions in place, adding a verification tag to the 'paid' clause. I'm also concerned about the sentence reading that president's statements "[downplay] the compensated nature of the work," which seems to indicate that there is a need to mention that fact and that it was intentionally omitted. --skew-t 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your observations are true Skew-t. I have tried to re-word the paragraph about the investigation so that it does not overstate any facts. All parties involved may in fact have done pro-bono work. The fact is that whether any parties did pro-bono work is unknown. From a neutral point of view, the "unknown" compensation status of the services is material to the university's claims that the commission was independent. The section now states that the compensation status of the work is not known and not publicly asserted. R33tr33t 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I also removed any statements about Willie Brown's race. I still affirm that it is material that he is an alumnus who carries the "social capital" of bieng a popular advocate of diversity. R33tr33t 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Censoring University History

SFSU is a very peculiar place with a very violent and corrupt history that embarrasses the administration, which habitually covers up embarrassing issues. It does appear that the university is reverting this page to an NPOV version reflecting an official propaganda line.

The previous version attempted to color the 2002 pogrom as a "he said/she said" dispute between "pro-Israel" demonstrators and "pro-Palestinians". It wasn't -- it was an attack against a peace demonstration by the Hillel Jewish student group by the Palestinian students association. The Jews were held captive against a building wall. There is no question of who did what, and that the campus police did not interfere. The events were widely covered in the national press, and the university was forced to apologize.

The 60's corruption scandals are well documented and available to anyone with access to microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle, or other contemporary newspapers, especially during Feb. 69, when the associated students was shut down by the state attorney general (NOT Ronald Reagan.

The university persists in referring to the 60's violence as a "student strike" -- but no strike vote was ever held and a 90 percent majority of the students were opposed. I suggest anyone who disputes this to go to the university library and read contemporary issues of the Daily Gater and the Phoenix (published by the Journalism department during semesters when corrupt student leaders controled the Gater and censored coverage).

I urge university spokesmen and extremist professors to stop reverting this page into propaganda. Scott Adler 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. "Pogrom (from Russian: погром; from "громить" IPA: [grʌˈmitʲ]- to wreak havoc, to demolish violently) is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre."

Yes, there was a near-riot, but to call it a pogrom demeans the people who died in them. The account of the incident that appears here comes from news reports published in a major San Francisco newspaper. Ckessler 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a riot, and an anti-Jewish riot is called a pogrom. And which "major San Francisco newspaper" are you referring to? And if that's your entire beef, why do you revert everything. I you have proof from a non-ideological that it was all a bunch of mutual shouting, thatno one was pushed against a wall, quote it and change that portion. If you have any evidence that there was no corruption at SFSC during the riots, prove it. Bit if you revert every change again, I will be forced to report you as a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 05:56, July 9, 2006 (UTC)
My user history contains nothing to support me being a vandal, so please, go right ahead. You seem to have missed WP:NPOV, so go read it again. Stop trying to edit this page to support your own views. And that major SF newspaper was the San Francisco Chronicle, so take a look at WP:Reliable Sources while you're at it. Major press outlets count as reliable sources, some guy who was there does not. Ckessler 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Erekat's attending SFSU as opposed to USF

From his biography
Educated from age three through twelve at Terra Sancta Roman Catholic School, Jericho. Israeli occupation began when he was twelve; first jailed at thirteen; usual childhood offenses, stone-throwing, cutting wires, fighting with soldiers, PLO graffiti etc. Sent overseas to the U.S. to study at seventeen (family links to San Francisco). Graduated from San Francisco State University BA (1977), MA (1979), both in International Relations. Elected President of the Arab Students Association while at SFSU.
From the SFSU magazine page
In 1972, Erekat followed an older brother to San Francisco to attend college. After two years at City College of San Francisco, he transferred to San Francisco State, where he supported himself working nights behind the counter at a Palestinian-owned delicatessen.

--fpo 20:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Such a proud thing, the author of the Jenin Massacre hoax went to SFSU!Scott Adler 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AntiSemitism

This school has the reputation of harboring more anti Judaism anti Israeli harrassment than any other school in the country. When I have the time this will be added to the article.Incorrect 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the following: SFSU has the reputation of being militantly pro Palestinian anti Israeli anti Jewish - this should be mentioned. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12354 Further indication that USF is a hot bed of anti semitism:http://www.jr.co.il/articles/sf-univ.txt Incorrect 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Incorrect 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, your statement above seems to be original research. It seems that you would need alot more sources and established facts before ANY school is labeled the way you do above. Thanks --Tom 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It is VERY correct -- as the 2002 pogrom as the Tatiana Meneker affair (a Jewish student who was "suspended" for four years for taking down an illegally posted 8.5x11 inch sign on a glass door), and other scandals can attest.
No Jewish or non-leftist student should attend SFSU if there is an alternative. If the university was serious about fighting anti-Semitism, they would stomp on it. They can, they simply won't. Scott Adler 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please update the university logo? The seal on the main wiki page is still used for formal occasions, but the standard new logo should also be posted. Akit 07:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Semitic means Arabic. How can a Palestinian support group be labelled anti Semitic for taking actions against the Israeli Support group who are also Semitic. The label anti Semite is used incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial king (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hayakawa wasn't "Chancellor" and there was no "Strike"

SI Hayakawa was PRESIDENT of SFSC, not chancellor, as a previous editor thought, and there was no "strike" in 1968 -- if you claim otherwise, please cite the date of the strike vote and the number of students participating.

There wasn't one. There were riots called by a group of extremist organizations with their own set of "non-negotiable demands". And as the principle target of the "strikers" were the students themselves -- beatings, bombs in the dorm, the visual arts building, etc. -- how could the students be striking?

Anyone who was there remembers this, unless you were one of "The Students" (with capital letters) e.g. the ten percent minority who voted for the radical party and supported the radicals' behaviors. They also remember what happened when the illegal funding dried up -- it all ended. Scott Adler 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact dates, but very early on there were two strike votes, one held by Third World students in the main auditorium and another by mainly white students in the Galleria. But a formal vote has never been a requirement for any kind of strike (though they are often used). The real "vote" of any strike is how many people honor the picket lines by not crossing them. And by that measure the Student Strike at S.F. State was as real as any other because for weeks a solid majority of students refused to attend class (and I was one of them) Brucehartford (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the university's 100 year history online [1] and I do agree that Hayakawa is president and as noted officially by the University. Could it be please noted in the wiki that the events of the student action was from 1968-1969 (it only mentions the late 60s)?

Also, the university recognizes that the events during this period is a "strike." In particular: Hayakawa pulled the cables in front of striking students, and the AFT striked and joined the picket line.

Lastly, it is possible that the wiki can recognize that the strike/student action led to the creation of the School (now College) of Ethnic Studies that started running in the Fall of 1969? [2] Thanks. Akit 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Hayakawa was president; chancellor is the title of the head of the entire CSU. It was indeed a strike however, but a student strike is different than a labor strike. This term is acknowledged by SFSU's own history information, which also states that it ended when student organizations and the administration signed an agreement.
I've added the end of the strike to the timeline. The creation of the Ethnic Studies was previously mentioned in the 'Diversity' section, but I've added it to the timeline as well. --skew-t 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
A student strike is no different "than" a labor strike -- I was a labor strike leader. You poll people, hand out fliers, man picket lines, and work to keep up morale. A riot is when an extemist minority bombs a dorm (Merced Hall), steals elections, and beats up people who don't agree. If someone were to punch someone else in the face and call it a "feather tap" that doesn't mean that the victem wasn't punched in the face. And fankly, it doesn't matter what SFSU calls it -- the administration has been entirely dishonest with its history and doesn't even acknowledge the financial scandals that surrounded the whole mess. The "strike" ended in the third week February, 1969, when the rioters were caught with their pants down and their hands in the till. (Administrators were involved; two presidents, Summerskill and Smith, were fired over their attempts to cover up the scandal). Everything else was aftermath, and if you don't believe me, go back and check the pages of the San Francisco Examiner and the Chronicle. It's all there. Even the national press covered it. Perhaps I'll write a book about it.Scott Adler 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, add the sources that says student strikes must be voted on by a majority of students. The sources I have seen on the events all refer to them as a "student strike" [3] [4] [5] [6]. The American Heritage Dictionary says a strike is "A temporary stoppage of normal activity undertaken as a protest." No mention of "stoppage, as voted on by the majority." You seem to be describing what a union does, not what just a strike entails.
If the extreme riotous events of bombings, beatings and misappropriation of funds occurred as you say, please provide a reliable source to back it up. The burden is on the editor adding the unsourced claims. It's fine if the university's account is inaccurate, but I have not seen these national press reports that say otherwise. --skew-t 00:29, 15 May 2007 (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)

hello == people that are looking at this!!!!!www.yahoo.com type in san francisco state and will take you to some website thank you for reading this late —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.151.196 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Faculty

I see a large section about notable alumni (with lots of red links), but no section about notable faculty. Certainly, there must be some notable SFSU faculty. Any suggestions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

notable faculty

if anyone knows any notable faculty please start a notable faculty section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.193.214 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan Q. Posin was a notable faculty member. He was professor of physics at SFSU for many years and a noted science educator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan500 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How can the endowment be so tiny?

I don't understand. Usually a college this old and big will have a billion dollars worth of non-transferable endowments collected. They have almost nothing? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.62.200 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've found press releases for endowment donations in the millions. And their donations page says an andowment will generate ~5% per year, so they clearly don't have a policy of not accepting or spending all of their endowments. It seems to me that US News might have a typo, or be giving their figure in 1,000's of dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.62.200 (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP CSU

 Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE!

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Past presidents

How about a section listing past presidents of SFSC and SFSU and the dates of their administrations? That's a standard element for college and university articles in Wikipedia. Dwalls (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! No Wikipedia entry on the events of 1968-69?

Whether you want to argue about whether it was a strike or not, this page should link to an entry detailing the demands and events of that year. It's hard to believe there's no one with expertise on this subject would couldn't write an entry. Here's a documentary--a compilation of news clips and other film of the demonstrations. http://blip.tv/laborvideo/the-turning-point-sf-state-68-strike-3641996 Eperotao (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on San Francisco State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over inclusion of "controversies"

Victor De Scribe has begun an edit war to ensure that his preferred version of the "Controversies" section remains in this article. I previously removed two "controversies" that don't seem noteworthy - a "near-riot" and an altercation between 2 students. Victor has not restored those two paragraphs so I assume that we're in agreement about those not being material we should include.

-- In response to above, I don't believe I started an edit war but apparently have found myself in one. It began when a large pre-existing section was deleted. I restored the Controversy section as it has been in place for several years on this page and is consistent with San Francisco State's efforts to encourage social discourse and social justice.Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The entire sections and content you removed could be included in History but then the section should reference that the complete content has been MOVED and allow all authors and editors to UPDATE the moved content consistent with the History section- in and of itself, this I think is more kludgey and its not clear its beneficial - the short term result is the content has been destroyed by your actions. Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe the section on the student dispute should have been removed but could not restore the content at the time as the page appeared to be locked and the removed content did not appear in Undo because of the large volume of changes made when we were both editing at the same time it appears. Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) ---

I also removed one "controversy" that has scant sourcing: an accusation that the university was hacked by Russians. Only one of the three cited sources even mentions this university and it only repeats the claim made by one person that there is evidence that a Russian IP address was involved. Victor originally added this section and has begun an edit war to retain this information after I removed for being poorly supported by the cited references. As currently written, it includes a lot of original research and sources that don't make any mention of this controversy or even this institution. Without better sourcing, this doesn't seem like something we can or should include.

-- There are multiple sources mentioned in the reference articles from local San Francisco newspaper sources such as the San Francisco Examiner as well as a CNN interview and other historical studies regarding Russian activity targeting Universities in the timeframe. Additional references including student newspaper reports and court references could not be added because the section was deleted after it was created. Checking timestamps, it appears highly improbable you could have reviewed all the referential content from the first publish event to your rapid deletion. This therefore looks like an attempt to silence contributors early at content creation and inception rather than making supportive edits and reasonable modifications to broadly sourced content.Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

--

Victor is also insisting that the controversies be included in their own stand-alone section instead of being integrated into the university's broader history. His attempt to enforce that preference - a preference that some editors, including me, believe is inherently biased - has resulted in this article mentioning some of these events twice, once in the history section and once in the controversies section. Not only is it POV to present controversies alone in a separate section without any connection to the subject's larger history and context, it's also sloppy and lazy.

-- Victor is not insisting on this-never says it and never claims it. Removal of an entire section though is highly suspect. As indicated above, the section has been standalone for rather a long time (several years.) It was created by other authors. Editing therefore began and has continued in this section for several years for varied content and because of a differing perspectives that don't allow a good fit for the content in the History section. Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

One could equally say you are biased by deciding to remove it when it has been a valid section created by others- using the terms "sloppy and lazy" seems to be an attempt to discredit and dismiss everyone who previously created and contributed to this section rather than to supply something relevant and meaningful, to explain with superior and rationale logic rather than name calling, why it should be deleted. It is not sloppy and lazy given the content likely would have never existed if someone hadn't created the Controversy section is the first place some time ago.Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --

I agree that some of these events should be mentioned in this article. They need to be included in appropriate sections where they're placed into context for readers, not a biased and lazy stand-alone section that implies that these incidents occurred without any context, development, or connection to anything else. These events certainly don't need to be fully described in multiple section. And Victor definitely shouldn't be edit warring over this material. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

-- I think it can logically be agreed that they don't need to be in multiple sections. If they were woven into the History section however they need a different type of editing and content that emphasizes a linkage with more extensive historical events - you actually removed references including Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Russian hacking activity though which would have supported a historical perspective. These were strong historical references for time and events based context- therefore your actions don't appear consistent with your stated arguments.Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to move all of the section and content into History and invite all the past authors to update their sections for references that place the events in historical content, that might work and would be fair. Until done however, consistent with past edits, they should remain in the original Controversy section (which was not created by Victor but by other authors who apparently haven't taken the time yet to dispute this blanket deletion of content and the section in which the content originally appeared.)Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Universities have controversy and it leads to often better outcomes for such content to be highlighted. I think the section should remain as well as all the original entries until prior authors can move their content with new references for the content to fit in History. Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your modifications suggested for richer external sourcing are useful and the content has been updated and was attempted to be updated with more sources when the entire content was deleted. Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As emphasized previously, removing entire sections and content again makes it look like one has another agenda- perhaps working for University PR, aligned politically with Trump, foreign state actors, or some other organization interested in a reduced narrative rather than content and references that open minds up to thought and additional inquiry. Dangerous that be - I think on this we can agree.Victor De Scribe (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --

Copied from my Talk page:
Hi ElKevbo Thanks for the editing comments and tips for the new paragraphs describing Russian hacking activity at San Francisco State University. The references have been updated to external links outside of Wikipedia as suggested and where relevant and when not describing a term or acronym.
The removal of an entire section describing historical events appears highly disturbing however. Perhaps a talk on a section or comments on selected items *before removal* would be more appropriate? You have deleted multiple highly reference entries and large paragraphs of information that were updated over time.
Editing an entire section titled "Controversy" is itself controversial! People are going to think you work for Donald Trump or another organization attempting to silence people and re-write history. I'm sure that is not your intent. Wikipedia isn't as easy as newer tools in embedding comments beside an entry and jumping to the talk section is kludgey and takes time. Removing an entire entry ignores other peoples work. I think more selective edits would work as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor De Scribe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Victor De Scribe, you need to find reliable sources that actually say what you're trying to insert into the article. This isn't the place for your beef with the university. If an event doesn't receive significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, it probably isn't worth inclusion. Blackguard 18:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

-- How is the deletion of an entire set of content by others ok? This isn't a beef- there are multiple entries regarding press reports of Russian hacking activity. If the sections and content weren't continually deleted they could be updated with additional references. What constitutes "significant coverage" and how are the SF Examiner and CNN not valid sources? I'd love to hear that logic. (Is this because Jim Acosta was kicked out of the White House by Trump and therefore CNN is no longer a valid new source for some people?) Victor De Scribe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised above, especially the lack of sources for the "hacking" incident. And please review our policy regarding original research, especially the part about Wikipedia editors not being allowed to synthesize sources to make an original point. ElKevbo (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Victor De Scribe: Please refactor your comments above so they comply with Talk page guidelines. In particular, place your reply below the complete comment to which you're replying and indent your reply so it's all clear and manageable. This is a helpful guide on exactly how to do that. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Controversies" section should be restored

The current "History" section looks poor compared to SFSU's other peer institutions' articles. Several of the points listed used to belong in a "Controversies" section, and appropriately so. The "History" section should be an overall, broad history of the school, listing important milestones that affected everyone, not for listing every point of contention that has arisen in its history. The 1968-69 student strike remains the defining event in the history of SFSU, so this should be included in the "History" section. But certain other points (Malcolm X painting, Science Building contamination, and the temporary anti-Jewish group policies) are peripheral in nature and should be moved to a "Controversies" section, where they will still be available for people to read. I suggest seeing San Diego State's article as an example. They have an "Incidents" section that contains important controversial incidents, but they are not listed in the school's overall "History" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhurst1945 (talk • contribs) 19:03, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article's "History" section is in poor shape and needs to be rewritten. But the controversies are part of the institution's history and not something separate from it. It's inherently POV to segregate controversial portions of a subject's history from the more positive parts of that history. If there are events in this section that are trivial then they need to be removed from the article entirely, not just moved to a different section.
If other articles have "Controversies" sections then they, too, probably need to be removed. I won't do that to the article you mentioned right now as that may be viewed as disruptive to our current discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo Thank you for your reply, and for properly signing my post. (This is my first foray into the "Talk" section, so I'm still figuring out the protocol.) Regarding your argument of POV, this is inherent in any encyclopedia article. Certain events are more noteworthy than others. All schools experience controversies during their existence, but the point of the opening "History" section is to offer a concise, summarized history noting events that had the greatest, longest-lasting impact on the university and the student body. The SFSU "History" section is not all positive; the most discussion is given to the violent 1968-69 strike, and rightly so, since it shut down the university for nearly two semesters and made national headlines. Everyone at SFSU was affected by this event; the same cannot be said of the other "controversial" points listed in my initial post. Look at other articles on CSU campuses; you won't find mentions of asbestos lawsuits or sandblasting a student painting in their opening "History" sections, and again, rightly so. Frankly I'd be fine with omitting the three aforementioned "controversial" events entirely, since I don't think they rise to the stature of warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia article, but I understand that others feel passionately that they should be included. At any rate, the "History" section is long overdue for an overhaul, so perhaps those points can be incorporated in a rewrite. -comment added by Rhurst1945
If there is material included in the history section that is not historically important or relevant then it should be removed.
Please feel free to propose a rewrite or just do it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of image of Malcolm X mural

Can the editor who objects to the image of the Malcolm X mural please explain to us why you object to it and why you keep removing it from this article with no explanation whatsoever? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Malcolm X mural draws an unnecessary focal point to an issue that overall is not as reflective of the university as a hole. The institution would be better serve if the same focal point would be used to point out for example to the hole Ethnic studies program at the university. Given that the African american community are neither the smallest or the biggest minority group on campus. Insulting to a point to all others. Where is the valor?2605:E000:93C1:5B00:ECD6:C30E:593B:EB61 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)2605:E000:93C1:5B00:ECD6:C30E:593B:EB61 (talk)
SF Students hold signs in solidarity and support of the Third World Liberation Front 2016, the name of the court students on a hunger strike to defend the SF State College of Ethnic Studies, during an emergency press conference in the Quad Monday, May 9. (Melissa Minton)[1]
It's apparently important enough to explicitly mention as part of the institution's history so why would we not include a relevant image? And why replace it in the history section with an image that's completely unrelated and not mentioned in the history section? ElKevbo (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It is "apparently important enough to explicitly mention as part of the institution history" and that is way it apparently has a bullet point all to it self. As to why it should not be included as a relevant image, once more the African american community are neither the smallest or the biggest minority group on campus. Meaning the images makes a point to draw attention to the African american experience singling them over other minorities, when it could be argue that other ethnicity like the American Indian have being marginalia's to a greater extend. In addition, Whites are now a "minority" on campus and white guilt, dose not extend to other communities. It dose not reflect the university as a hole, if anything it brings a negative image of the institutions, given its controversy. Especially if there are no more images added to draw less attention to the mural and point out to positive achievements, or reflect more accurately the community as a hole. The image that was added is not unrelated if anything it points out the hypocrisy by the revert edit putting in a pedestal this community over a multitude of others. The image is not in agreement or accordance with generally accepted or established limits. Further more if the arctics wanted to make the same point with dough drawing as much controversy the artist should have drawn Martin Luther King Jr. in place of Malcolm X. The painting was controversial and images remove given it step out of line. Lastly, if history section dose not address to your standers new added information why don't you educate and add something about it?108.184.12.250 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're here to make a political point. Please stop; you're likely to be blocked or have the article protected so you can't edit it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You are the one trying to make a political point, face the facts. You should have shame. Hmm i don't think that for a lot of people *that* image stands for the University. Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. #Get a real education.2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 (talk)2605:E000:93C1:5B00:3466:31EC:4BB6:4AB2 (talk)

  • Support keeping this image of a well-known work of art on the campus. No persuasive argument for removing the image has been advanced, other than that someone doesn't like it. Disclosure: I attended SFSU for two semesters in the late 1970s, before graduating from the University of San Francisco. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as well per Cullen EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The fact that someone doesn't like it is meaningless, as we don't censor. It meets the criteria to include as being part of the history and adds context to the article. Claims of racism are laughable as there is no commentary taking sides, the article already simply presents the facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I like the mural and I appreciate its politically important message, but American freedom of panorama laws don't allow the mural image. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The mural is explicitly discussed in the article so I'm comfortable making an argument for fair use if that's necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I would support a fair use rationale. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I also believe there is a clear Fair Use rationale that would satisfy policy here, and would support moving it over to enwp (as I see ElKevbo has initiated at Commons) to facilitate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

...Oh well keep the painting then by all "means." Trump is still president, there is no problem. There is no accounting for taste and time is valuable. Go state.2605:E000:93C1:5B00:2C3D:B399:C6C1:C8D8 (talk)

File:Malcolm X mural.jpeg
The current, and not at all controversial, Malcolm X mural was painted by SF State students Eric Norberg and Kamau Ayubbo. Malcolm’s widow, Dr. Betty Shabazz, was an honorary speaker at the dedication ceremony
  • This is an editorial decision, not a political one, so by all means, feel free to get off your self-righteous high horse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • An explanation was asked and was given 2¢, we are in agreement, editors decision. The image has not been subsequently removed and told so. The polite thing was done. The intolerance of tolerance clearly. Live with oneself. There is nothing to be gained by further conversation. Look at times of the comments, moved on. Spend the reminder of your time uplifting others. I do desire we may be better strangers. Goodbye :o) 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:C414:F879:971A:70A0 (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Minton, Melissa (2016-05-09), The Fight for Ethnic Studies_12, retrieved 2018-12-14

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hatred of Jews at SFSU

This university has a fairly solid reputation as the West Coast academic center for hatred of Jews, with student misbehavior followed by at-best tepid administrator responses again and again (as seen most recently in the Leila Khaled affair), and this should be mentioned on the article. It would be easy to document a number of incidents. If it can be documented that its reputation is not entirely deserved, then that should be mentioned too. But the issue should not be completely left off the article (compare the coverage of similar issues on the University of California, Irvine article)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence? ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
That is really not the bottleneck here -- there is plenty of coverage of a number of incidents, but I don't feel very motivated to search out sources if any mention of the issue will be purged from the page (as has apparently happened in the past). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're unwilling to provide evidence then it's unlikely the information will be added to this or any other article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
That is NOT the issue, no matter how much you try to pretend it is. Anyone can turn up ample journalistic articles with a few simple basic Google searches with well-chosen keywords, so the problem is not sourcing. The problem is whether the article is going to be whitewashed again, as it apparently was in the past. Such prospective whitewashing is an advance disincentive to doing the work of formally lining up source information, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section should be revisited

Not sure if my recent addition re: Riley Gaines will remain on the article, but if it does, the last four events listed in History would be more accurately categorized as controversies. SmolBrane (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to remove Gaines from the article entirely. But, definately take it out of the "history" section. It looks absurd how four items in history are full paragraphs of contemporary news, and we have just brief notes on all the real history before. For example, starting BA's or getting University status seems historically significant for a University. It's an unavoidable bias, that we always think what we heard about yesterday is somehow extra special, compared to all the stuff in the past, most of which is forgotten, despite being a big deal at the time. Also, I dislike contentious material about a contemproary person being spread around in a way, that makes it a lot easier for somebody to sneak in bad edits, that would be missed in the central BLP. I'm not complaining about the current content, as it seems to match Riley Gaines article, but there is that danger. Are we going to write a news summary of every campus protest? Anytime a "history" section refers to an "ongoing" investigation, you know this is probably not history, but just news. --Rob (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The Riley Gaines incident is pretty unique with the barricading and PEN America commenting on it. Also the sourcing is robust. I agree content could be better organized. SmolBrane (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Francisco_State_University/Archive_1&oldid=1177229200"