Talk:St. John's University (New York City)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Which Saint John?[edit]

I've been trying to determine which of the several St. John's this particular school is named after. If anybody knows, this seems like a pretty important piece of information to include in the article. (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The patron saint is John the Baptist. There is a fountian of him on the Queens campus. However at the university he is never really mentioned, the focus is more on Vincent de Paul.11:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sille714 (talkcontribs)

Clear now that IP is vandal with agenda[edit]

I havent visited this page in several months, but I return to find the same suspiciously determined individual who once went by the name "uconnstud" obsessively degrading this article and attempting to slander the university. It is clear to me that the only two motives for such a consistent and determined behavior over years, one that involves hourly monitoring of this particular article by the perpetrator seven days a week,are 1.personal ax to grind of a MAJOR kind, or 2.someone who is working on behalf of a competing university that is threatend by St. Johns recent rise. I believe the later is more reasonable. Were it merly personal, it would be less consistent as an individual person would not have the time to monitor this article 24/7 and have a life. I believe that a competing regional university has a group of people actually assigned to this article in hopes of harming St. johns rep. We all know the recent construction of campus dorms, which for decades didnt exist, record freshman admissions and increasing school popularity has made the school more competitive. It is clear that is a group of people and not just one guy. And what is going on here is more serious than first thought, especially with the revelation of the facebook slander page. needs to be banned immediately. There is no reason in debating someone whos stated motives are disingenuous and who's true motives are clearly molevolent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Page on St. John's University, NY[edit]

I think that the article about St. John's University, New York was a torpedo job. Whoever wrote it 1. brought the long outdated strike which was going on when I was a student there, using a Time Magazine article for ALL his info. this controversy has no relation to the university, and, because the University is solid Catholic, Time, and the writer obviously tried to blackened the eye of the place. Probably the most offensive part was citing the Time article saying that the university was kind of substandard. I had an excellent education there, and I know plenty of scholars and successful persons who have gone there. In addition, I have six academic degrees form a variety of universities, so I should know what a good education is, not the mention the fact that I taught there for 5 years.

The writer also mis interprets the US News article about rankings of the Business School. The article is in US News' "Best Business Schools" section--how is this "unranked?" The Tobin School of Business is accredited by the American Association of Colleges and Schools of Business, which is the ONLY accreditation for business schools, and it is an accreditation which is hard to get.

Maybe someone will revise the article who is honest and does not have an ax to grind!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wluckey (talkcontribs) 03:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You sound just as biased in the other direction, what, you cannot handle the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not to merge St. John's University School of Law. No consensus to merge St. John's University (Italy) into St. John's University (New York). -- Bhockey10 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the technical steps of two incomplete merge proposals from St. John's University (Italy) and St. John's University School of Law. Please discuss this here. Note that I do not have an opinion as to the proposals themselves. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I do not think it is appropriate to merge the law school page with the rest of the University page because every other law school in New York (and every else that I checked) maintains a separate wikipedia page.

-- (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • it is honestly academic boosterism for most schools. st john's university law school is such a small article that it would better serve as a part of the main article. (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a large and significant enough article to remain seperate. This proposed merge seems a waste and serves no real purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Law School merge but Support Italy merge, as the Italy campus is not notable while the Law School is notable. OCNative (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't merge! They're two separate schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Potential sources[edit]

"Volpe enrolled at St. John's University in 1990" abner louima —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"St. John's is far more secular than it was in 1962, when two students who were married in a civil ceremony were expelled for violating ecclesiastical law." john's university rape&st=nyt&pagewanted=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reagan quote[edit]

{{3O}} Yes, 3O visitor, I know that third opinions should only be sought after Talk page discussion has come to a standstill. The unregistered editor who apparently disagrees with me refuses to discuss the issue in Talk, only using edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I contend that the Reagan quote currently in the lead is out of place there. It seems to be a piece of trivia purporting to attest to the institution's quality when in fact it comes across as trivial and pandering. ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Another unregistered editor appears to agree with me on this issue but our friend also reverted those edits (and several intervening ones that are unrelated to this and uncontroversial) without discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

St. John's University, NY Vandalism - El Krevbo's and's anti-St. John's vitriol[edit]

User El Krevbo, likely also user, continues to vandalize the page. El Krevbo believes that this community Web page, developed over many years by many people, is owned solely by him. He has a point of view that can not be disputed, and attempts to paint St. John's University in a wholly negative light, giving "warnings" to anyone who may disagree with him. His favorite issue is the St. John's University strike which occurred over 45 years ago. Indeed, it should be mentioned, for it is a historical event, though not highlighted and put in bold. His most-loved source is a Time Magazine piece written almost half a century ago. To illustrate his hatred and point of view, he bolds a quote from the story that says the university does not rank highly. That information is outdated. For comparison, the University of Notre Dame and New York University, two highly-ranked universities today, were not highly-ranked almost fifty years ago.

He also reverts any factual information that may be viewed as positive in the lead. He removes the fact that St. John's University has undergone a major, historical transformation aimed at enrolling students from outside New York. He deletes any reference to a sitting, two-term president visiting the university and rivaling it to Harvard. In the past, he has deleted any information in the lead that mentions its selectivity and rankings.

He deleted information that referenced its journalism degree as being only one of two offered in New York City.

His vandalism is obvious, and he goes as far as to delete any references to St. John's that may be viewed positively on other Wikipedia pages! A minuscule mention to the St. John's journalism program was deleted by him on the "Journalism schools" page. A subsequent revert of his deletion was countered by him burying the program to the bottom of the page, whereas every other new school listed has always been placed at the top.

El Krevbo and his IP addresses are a shame to Wikipedia, which boasts how community members participate in world knowledge. (talk) 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to such ridiculous and baseless accusations. I'll wait a while more for a third party to respond to the request above before moving ahead with further actions. I can't imagine this ending well for an unregistered editor making verifiably false accusations and refusing to reasonably discuss article content. ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
this guy 97 is a fool. he has no interest in reasonable discussion, making false accusations and attacks! (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Hi! I'm here to offer a third opinion. As per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the lead should be able to "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Leads should be clear, informative, and to the point, summarising the major topics discussed in the article. An opinion by a former President, while interesting, does little to introduce the reader to the article with a vague statement like the "new Harvard", and as such, should not be included in the lead.

As an aside, I think it's highly exaggerated to label a minor editing dispute as "hatred" or a "shame to Wikipedia". While it is true that Wikipedia encourages all editors to participate, articles need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines, including the guideline on writing leads.

You can, however, add the the content to the body paragraphs, provided it's presented in a "neutral point of view" with reliable sources to verify any of the claims you've made. The Reagan quote, as an example, can be included under the History section, but only if the source is confirmed to be reliable. Hope that helps!—hkr Laozi speak 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks hkr! I would be amenable to having the material in another section provided it's written in a neutral manner, has reliable sourcing, is presented with due weight, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The vandal(s) you speak of, formerly IP and uconnstud, has been here for years. I have commented on his questionable behavior multiple times in the past. His motives at this point are clearly malevolent and has gotten even worse and less subtle recently yet for some reason there seems to be no one at wikipedia who is able or willing to check his behavior. It seriously calls into question the intelligence and/or competence of administrators of this wiki. hkr, have you even read the article and compared it to the typical university page on wikipedia?! Your tone toward the vandal(s) seems disturbingly naive at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As a third opinion editor, I have no interest in the subject, I'm merely commenting on the lead and how it adheres to the Manual of Style guidelines. It's absurd to assume that, on a website with millions of articles and a thousand volunteers, every single article will be vigilantly watched. But, from what I can gather, there are two sides, one adding unfavourable content, and the other reverting it. It is true that there may be some "due weight" concerns, but blindly labeling users with a different point of view as a conspiracy of sockpuppets to "vandalise" the article is naive and unwarranted. Digging through the history, it's clear that previous editors from both sides of the debate have engaged in hostility, sockpuppetry, incivility, and edit warring, so I am not here to defend either party. There may be disagreements on the coverage of certain events; that's perfectly fine, but please settle your disputes on the discussion page.
As User:Seraphimblade said: "To be quite clear here: I do not have a position in the content issue, and don't care one bit who's "right" or "wrong". That's what dispute resolution is there for, not for me to decide. My position, however, is that the edit warring needs to stop as of now. Take a polite, civil discussion to the talk page, seek mediation, or put in a content RfC, but it's time to stop the reverting. "--hkr Laozi speak 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

hkr, being disinterested in the subject as a partial third party is well and fine, but what is needed and what you and others in your position in the past have lacked that is needed is a rational point of reference in order to make intelligent determinations of malavolent behavior on the part of particular editors. It does no good to merely note that "both sides engage in hostility and incivility" as this is not the substantive issue at hand. As i said before a simple contrast of this article with the typical university page on wikipedia as well as the particular content in dispute should result in a blaring red light regarding the motives of certain editors as being abnormaly negative for such a non political article as this. It is rarely if ever the case that university articles experience any notable level of discord. Assumption of good faith needs to have reasonable limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your primary concern is one of "due weight". This is a perfectly valid issue, and I have not contested it. But if you want your points to be heard and taken seriously, you must do so intelligently and with more finesse; edit wars, blanket statements on other editors (such as sockpuppetry accusations), rhetorical fallacies, vague outcries of malevolence and vitriol without evidence, do not help your case. Understand that I am not against you or your position, I am only here to offer help. I highly advise that you go through the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:DUE and WP:UNIGUIDE especially), bring up the contentious edits, tackle the disagreements one by one, and discuss it all on the talk page with other editors. This is the only productive way to accomplish anything, not just on this page, but on all of Wikipedia: through civil, sensible discussion and consensus. I don't consider this suggestion to be unreasonable, if you articulate your position cogently, people will listen.--hkr Laozi speak 04:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Journalism undergraduate program[edit]

One of the issues that seems to be (bizarrely) contentious is the description of the undergrad journalism program. Can those involved in this dispute please tell us what is going on? I can't seem to follow this since you're all only using edit summaries and not discussing the issue here.

As a reminder, the sentence that seems to be removed and added over and over again is: "Its well-known undergraduate journalism program is also one of only two journalism degrees offered at universities in New York City, along with New York University."

I think at least one edit summary removed this sentence claiming that it's untrue. I poked around a bit and I can't seem to find another undergraduate journalism program in NYC. However, the sentence is unsourced which is problematic not only for the claim of bring one of two programs in the city but also the claim that it's "well-known."

So what's the issue here? Why is this sentence being continually added and removed by multiple editors, all of whom have clearly violated the Three-Revert Rule? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

City College of New York has one too. In addition, almost every other school has some sort of "communications" program, which almost always refers to journalism. DC TC 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I remember looking on CUNY's website this morning and they only listed a graduate program in journalism and an undergrad communications program. I understand the argument that communications programs are a superset of journalism programs but that seems too ORish for my taste. ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I should've read more, it's only a minor. Either way I'm not sure having one of two of a certain program in a certain area is important enough for inclusion. I can't imagine other sources cite the fact a lot when discussing St. John's. DC TC 18:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an excellent point and I'd be totally fine with omitting the information on that basis. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty notable and should definitely been included somewhere. Many colleges/universities have programs that stand out and are so highlighted. It is most definitely notable that St. John's is one of only two schools that offer journalism degrees. Actually, St. John's was the only program in New York City before a few years ago to offer a journalism degree - I know that it meant even more then. CAtruthwatcher (User talk:CAtruthwatcher) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Those are a lot of assertions to make without any evidence... ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A page ought to give information about the subject and tell one about what makes it unique. The New York City page tells how it is unique because it is the largest city in America, for example. Take a look at Harvard University's introduction - it's all about what makes the school unique. The unique St. John's journalism program isn't even in the intro - it's buried at the bottom of Academics. CAtruthwatcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

And I'm still not seeing any evidence that this program is noteworthy beyond your own assertions. How do we know that it's well-known? How do we know that it's one of two programs in NYC? I don't mind there being a sentence mentioning the program in the Academics section but that's only if the information is verifiable - right now it's not. ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bold Lettering - Strike almost 50 years ago[edit]

I really do not want to lob accusations about the motives of the individual seeking to bold a statement from a magazine article 45 years ago, so I shall begin differently.

The use of bold lettering from an obscure magazine article from almost half a decade ago is not only an attempt to showcase a point of view, but is against Wikipedia's Bold policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAtruthwatcher (talkcontribs) 03:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:BOLD? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with CAtruthwatcher on this one. Why is the quote in bold? Is that how the MOS says we should include it? I don't think that's right but I'm not an MOS expert. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
However, the quote should not be removed as it's quite notable when Time writes about an institution that doesn't typically receive national coverage. ElKevbo (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the information you keep adding does not belong under the "Rankings" section of this article. Mentioning a quote from Ronald Reagan praising the school is not a "ranking" and may not belong in the article at all. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind it being in rankings but maybe the section should be renamed to "Rankings and reputation" or something like that. I can see how it belongs with the rankings. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on all this: My original comment "Did you even read WP:BOLD?" was solely directed to CAtruthwatcher's misuse of a policy. The text should not have been bolded, but it should have been included.
The Reagan quote was largely promotional, especially coming from a St. John's website, and the part about the Harvard article was unsourced.
Maybe the section could be entitled "Acclaim" if the Reagan quote stays. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reagan quote (again)[edit]

With respect to the Reagan quote, it most definitely should be included. You think it does not belong in the "Rankings" section? Where does it belong? It is notable and quotable. A sitting president received an honorary doctorate and called the university the "new Harvard," and a subsequent attack from Harvard's newspaper was printed. That is not notable but an obscure magazine piece from almost 50 years ago mentioning a minuscule strike is notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAtruthwatcher (talkcontribs) 03:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's way too long in its current form. The original brief mention that was in the lead was ok, IIRC. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, El Krevbo. The current editors are trying to completely remove it from the page. It is due some mention. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it shouldn't even be listed. every year some college graduation has a speaker who says something positive about a school. does that mean we should place it in every college article? (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

sitting presidents speak at many schools. john kennedy spoke at rice, but that does not mean we should have a quote as well. (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Least Happy Students?[edit]

SJU was also named #19 in the less-than-flattering "Professors make themselves scarce" category. This is the second year in a row that the University was included in this list.

In its 2007 edition, Princeton Review also included St. John's in its "Least Happy Students" ranking, a list that the University avoided this year. Just like last year, people have found reason to complain about the rankings. According to Princeton Review, an average of 325 students is surveyed per college campus. (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Princeton Review has a horrible methodology and shouldn't be included in any college or university article, IMHO. ElKevbo (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 Most Expensive Dorms in the Nation[edit]

St. John's ranked number 7! (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Campus Grotto doesn't seem to be a terribly reliable source of high-quality data. Maybe I'm wrong but I think we shouldn't rely on information published in blogs with no more detailed methodology than "data collected from websites." ElKevbo (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


As an alum of SJU, I can honestly say that I wouldn't have recognized the logo listed as the crest as actually being the crest of the university, as opposed to the university shield (previously appearing at the bottom of the info box and also on the page for the School of Law). This is quite simply because SJU does not regularly use this crest in its published materials. It also seems to be apparent that the logo that SJU identifies with is the university shield, as can be seen from even a cursory review of the official St. John's webpages. I have switched the ordering of the images on the info box on this page, as to better illustrate the imagery used by the university and, in light of the existence of multiple St. John's Universities, not to confuse readers who will likely not recognize the crest or associate it with the St. John's University they have sought encyclopedic information regarding. --(talk) 06:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC), edited --Yuristache (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Data[edit]

Today, I updated data in the Student Body section from 2007, 2008 and 2009 to the new data available from 2010. It is hard to understand how one could have trouble with such an edit, however we do. User has reverted the data. Does anyone object to 2007, 2008, and 2009 data being replaced with 2010 data? (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes 8 years to get 4,6, and 8 year graduation rates. As such 8 years isn't old in this case. [1] (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, there is plenty of information on graduation rates present. And even if for some reason you're right on that point, that gives one no reason to delete revisions to an entire section. (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is no reason, y did you delete the 4 and 8 year rates? (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Even if there is a dispute about the graduation rates, you have not the right to delete all edits on other topics.

2. The six-year rate is the one to which almost all refer. I didn't even know 8-year rates existed. (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can revert the edits of a blocked user at any time. So long as they are blocked CATruthseeker! So you didn't know? Where did you graduate from? (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is none of your business, and I suggest you act civil. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP actually has a point... so long as the formal block remains in place, s/he is entitled to revert without fear of breaking the rules. I suggest either a unblock or a reblock. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have advised to request unblock on his main account, see User talk: Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article[edit]

(Moved from User talk:

I was reading the article that was cited [2] that was used for [[3]]. I was wondering where does it say that St. John's is amongst the best Catholic Schools. If you read the article it states that "A half-dozen schools, besides Notre Dame, are outstanding," the half dozen are Georgetown, Holy Cross Fordham, St. Loius, Boston College, and Catholic University. They listed other schools as "A number of other Catholic schools fall into the mass-production or good-small categories" This is where St. John's was listed. I will correct the statement "Time also considered St. John's as one of the best Catholic universities in the nation" since the statement is incorrect. (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I read the article very carefully before adding the information. The premise of the article is "top Catholic schools," and while it does not explicitly say "St. John's University is one of the top Catholic schools in the nation," it implies that if there were a list, St. John's would be on it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That is using Original Research. You're implying what the article is saying. It doesn't say that at all. I don't even believe it is implying that. St John's is in the section of mass production or good small categories. that is why for a number of schools afterwards they are giving the number of students that each of them have. (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Best Catholic Colleges," it's hardly original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, do you mind if we take this to the St John's talk page and get a 3rd opinion? (where an outside individual makes an opinion on it) (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that would be helpful. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What I see in many articles is that people put down this extravagent history of a school and claims of it being elite. There are over 3000 colleges in the United States and everyone puts down these amazing histories that really isn't amazing just marketing. I know Eagles is NOT guilty of this, but other users are guilty of this. (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request ( whether a quote from a source properly supports a statement in the article (third party posting) ):
After reading the source, the statement appears to be misleading and reaching at best. The IP editor appears to be correct in that the first page of the article specifically talks about the best Catholic colleges, while the rest of the article is devoted to listing the other Catholic colleges it looked at. Given the age of the source, the date of when Time made the statement (February 1962) should be included and rather than saying the school is the best, it should be stated that the school ranked as "good-small".—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, how's this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Better, but I would change the wording to give it more context, "top Catholic universities", top regarding what? How are they measuring, when was the measurement taken? What was the sample size? Did they evaluate ALL catholic universities of the time? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have clarified here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, that appears to work. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

olympian Rowan Barrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)'s_Red_Storm_men's_basketball_players — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


There's currently an MFD for a User hosted "compromise draft" happening here. I don't know if this draft would be useful to y'all, but if it's not, it's likely that it will be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT. Achowat (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012[edit]

Under Fraternities and Sororities St. John’s Fraternities & Sororities are governed by three councils which are part of our Student Government Inc. (SGI). The councils are our African & Latino Fraternal/Sororal Alliance, Interfraternity Council, and Panhellenic Council. A delegate from each fraternity or sorority attends their respective council meetings and is eligible for nomination to an executive board or appointed position. Each organization and council is given a budget from SGI and the opportunity to apply for funding for conventions and events through a special allocation budget. Applications are heard every other week by the Inter-Greek Council. Each organization has a national, graduate, or alumni advisor, depending on the structure of the organization. This advisor attends meetings and events regularly, and assists with national policy and any other issues that may arise. Fraternities and sororities also have faculty advisors that serve as a resource for academic and on campus support. In addition to the advisors that the organizations appoint, student affairs has a team of professional staff and graduate assistants. These staff members support each organization and council in their daily activities, leadership training, event planning, and the many other facets of Greek life.

The Panhellenic Council consists of 7 sororities, Gamma Phi Beta, Delta Phi Epsilon, Theta Phi Alpha, Phi Sigma Sigma, Kappa Phi Lambda, Kappa Phi Beta, and Lambda Phi. The Inter-Fraternity Council consists of FFFfraternities: Sigma Chi Beta, Alpha Phi Delta, Tau Kappa Epsilon, Kappa Sigma, Pi Kappa Phi, Phi Delta Chi, Pi Delta Psi, Iota Nu Delta, Lambda Phi Epsilon, and Sigma Beta Rho. Ametoplease (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done for now. Can you provide reliable sources for all of this information, and clean it up a little bit in terms of flow? If you do that reopen the request by changing answered=yes to answered=no and I'll come take another look. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Update endowment-change it from $267 million to $350.5 million.

Source: [1]

Thanks,--Pockekes (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2012 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2011 to FY 2012" (PDF). 2012 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. National Association of College and University Business Officers. 2012. p. 2. Retrieved March 14, 2013. 
Yes check.svg Done -- Dianna (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request RE: New Brunswick Theological Seminary[edit]

I would ask the primary editors of this article to find an appropriate place to mention that the New Brunswick Theological Seminary offers courses and operates a satellite on the SJU campus. NBTS mentions SJU three times, SJU mentions NBTS zero. I would find a place to mention it, but out of courtesy ask that primary editors of the article to determine where the information best fits within their work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike Fransesca = NOT notable alum??[edit]

Can someone explain just how it is that Mike Fransesca does not meet the cut for the notable alumni section? Just about everyone growing up in the NYC metro knows him from his legendary days with Mike and the Mad Dog and from his enormously popular current show as well.

In 2012, Francesa was ranked No. 1 as the 100 most important sports talk radio hosts in America by Talkers Magazine.

-- (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC) CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Least happy" rankings[edit]

Can the editors (e.g., Redmen007, BlackAmerican) who are edit warring over the inclusion of material related to the university's "Least happy" rankings paragraph please find a compromise? If not, I imagine that editors will soon be blocked and the article may be protected from editing by anyone. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Need for updating[edit]

The whole entry is seriously out of date, except that it does list the current president. The scandals of the previous presidential administration are not even mentioned.2601:1C0:6A01:F14:1C1B:DA39:FD9C:A28D (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)