Talk:St. John's University (New York City)/Archive 4

Mission

I believe that the mission, vision, and core values of St. John's University (acronym STJ not SJU noticed from previous post) should be included. As well as the university's emphasis on Vincentian Service.Sille714 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Branch Campuses

The Staten Island and Oakdale campuses have their own histories which should be included in the article.--Sille714 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick FYI, Oakedale is called a 'Graduate Center,' not a campus Zeuscgp (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

staten island campus was the former Notre Dame College (New York)[1] more information available here [2] and here [3] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

also i believe there were dorms at the staten island campus for a while now. even before the queens campus. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted Alumni

A newbie here, not sure if i'm doing this right....but....why are all the noted alumni men? did the school only recently go co-ed? have no women of note graduated from there?? just thought i'd ask. 202.131.182.41 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)?

Student Life

As most students know (myself being an alum, 2003), the school now operates under Student Life a shuttle bus service...and such, I placed in an image of the service in the Student Life section, noting how it is used in Discover New York and for off-campus housing. The vehicle says Megabus, but in the windshield, it becomes clear who it is serving. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The Controversy section I feel contains alot of unnecessary pieces of information. Why are random acts being placed on here that has nothing to do with the university itself other than someone who went to school there was involved? I've deleted some of the entries so far but shouldn't only major scandals be included in this as Wikipedia is more of an encyclopedia and not a news ticker? I've looked at some other universities' wiki pages and don't see this kind of entry list where every alleged criminal act made by a student or former student is put up. -- NyRoc (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2008

The controversey section is SUSPICIOUSLY large and includes too many acts that have nothing to do with the university itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.34.165 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidents involving someone that happens to be an alumnus of the university has nothing to do with the university itself. As noted above, that content should be removed unless it happened while they were affiliated with the university and was notable. Also, crime is not controversial. It happens on every campus. This article should not be a police log. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assuming good faith" when edits are clearly malevolent in intent

I know that we should "assume good faith" but my common sense observations of some of the content as well as needless reverts of some of my edits (petty things, such as removing Governor Cuomos name from the top of the alumni list and placing Ron Artests name at the top instead), as well as many other edit reverts concerning unnecessary details the purpose of which seem simply to portray the University in a negative light in a variety of rather petty ways. The controversey section is SUSPICIOUSLY large and includes too many acts that have nothing to do with the university itself. Most universities dont have a controversey section at all yet this one not only has such a section but it is one of the more prominent sections in the article.

It is simply not reasonable to assume good faith when there is clear and conspicuos malice, and the minor edits and info serve no other purpose than to diminish the article. Assuming good faith is a useful concept generally but one must use common sense when observing irrational people with vendettas or agendas. And that is clearly what is going on with the edits of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.34.165 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=250461687 208.120.47.96 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has been sysop protected for three days due to the ongoing content dispute. Please try to resolve the arguments here. Tan | 39 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempts have been made for discussion but there are those who keep editing who have ignored such requests to participate(although seem to tell others to go to the discussions when they already have. NyRoc (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think the '6 athletic programs eliminated' should be under Athletics? Besides them attending the school (Four St. John's University students of Pakastani descent...) what does this have to with the University? Are races important facts under the controversy section? It sounds like a police report. Zeuscgp (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

alright move the 6 eliminated programs to athletics. there were in fact rapes that directly involved the school including the one at the dorm and the one that involved the basketball players. i thought that they should be listed in the controversy section but if you would like to move them into the one that involved the sports players to the sports section i don't object to it. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A crime on campus, even one as terrible as a rape, is generally not notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article. Also, Wikipedia is not for reporting news. A good article to determine what is appropriate in a university article can be found here. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As Alanraywiki says, this is not a news ticker. As for the rape cases, I think the two team rapes ones are legitimate. However, the one in the dorms I find irrelevant. The articles that accompanies it states the victim knew one of the men and let them the three of them in, and then fell asleep. I mean it is unfortunate what happened but there's no mention of the university's involvement.

I think the removal of the six athletic teams should be noted in the athletics sections but that the list of 'defunct sports teams' should be removed as that is redundant.

I also have an issue with the entry about students being arrested because of marijuana. I don't see that as controversial either. NyRoc (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone here please tell me why this quote: "Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools; in troubles, it outdoes them all." (1965) is included in the rankings section? A quote by some guy from 40 YEARS AGO that was not quantified with any evidence to back it up even back then is not significant nor appropriate for the article for this university today. Also what is the necessity of the inclusion of races of people involved in crimes in the controversey section? Another thing of note is the picture of the shuttle bus is incorrect. Basic critical reasoning should have made this obvious given the size of the student body at this college but since that skill seems to be in short supply here I am forced to inform whomever placed the photo there that it is not the shuttle bus used to transport students. The actual shuttle bus is greyhound sized and would not be mistaken for the current picture.

Also i have yet to hear an intelligent reason as to why this article has a controversey section at all while other university pages (despite having no less crime) dont have one at all.

I agree. First, that statement is from 1965 referring to the faculty strike. This is an outdated statement that should be removed.

You are correct about the shuttle bus. I used to see two types of buses driving through Queens; a full size bus and a smaller trolley.

The controversy section should be removed. Look at some SJU competitor schools (NYU, Fordham, Hofstra...). Im sure all have problems. None have 'controversy' sections. Zeuscgp (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The marijuana controversy involved a basketball player (which is a program st johns' is known for). He was expelled. The player he smoked with was an NBA player. Some of the issues were racial in nature. Thus the races were listed. The shuttle bus is actually in front of the campus. If you've seen the campus it is easily noted that this is the case. The off campus dorms don't really have a huge population. Thus a small bus can service it. Controversy section, very necessary. A number of other schools have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University#Recent_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suny_old_westbury#Marijuana_and_Other_Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_University_C.W._Post_Campus#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Controversies NYU is a far better school than St. John's. So is Fordham. Hofstra is in the same level as St. John's. The quote "Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools; in troubles, it outdoes them all." (1965). Is showing there is a history of trouble at St. John's. That is why the controversy section is so large. Gun men on campus, shootings on campus, rapes on campus, alleged attempts at child endangerment by Priests on campus, least happy students. The list is pretty big. The quote wasn't by some random guy. It was a magazine that it was in Time Magazine . Which is at the same level as US News and World Report . 208.120.47.96 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If they were off campus, what does his have to do with the University? SJU having a basketball program is not sufficient. (The first analogy that pops into my head is how come player parking tickets are not include) Same thing with the "Pakastani" students. What does this have to do with the University?

The information about the "2004 the St Johns basketball team" is not fully correct. It did not take place in a locker room. If the original poster research the event they would know the correct information.

"Some of the issues were racial in nature." Please explain what 'some of the issues' were rather than giving a blind statement.

I could say the same thing you said about SJU vs Westbury, CWP, and Bob Jones (SC, yeah that relates to NY) as you said about NYU vs SJU.

Once again, what does a quote from 1965 have to do 45 years after it was given?

It seems many of these controversies are hastily written (as noted by the lack of correct information and misspellings). It seems just enough information is given to give a reader ill-thoughts but not enough to full understand the situation. "NCAA for misrepresent facts in an NCAA investigation." What facts, what investigation?

Why is the faculty strike spoken of in the 'history' section of the school? None of the schools you provided have their 'recent histories/ controversies' in their history.Zeuscgp (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It involved a current basketball player with an NBA player and school basketball player. In terms of individuals who became governors after they attended St. John's; what does that have to do with the school? It occrred after they attended the school! You can't simply list the good and not list the bad! St John's is in competition for the same students as hofstra and LIU. A quote from a magazine only shows that the troubles aren't a current trend. For the NCAA investigation, you can easily look it up! A link is provided! The faculty strike is its own article. A very prominant article I might add. If you look at CCNY the basketball scandal is listed in its history section. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all governors are not a "good" listing, they are a prominent one. That list like every other university page are meant to show prominent positions that students went on to take. Now whether they were "good" or "bad" at the job is not detailed. Simply b/c governors are listed does not make it "good". You want to put a random police officer who committed a crime. Even if he was the police commissioner, you would still simply say Police Commissioner at the bottom and then note what he did on his own article page not here. By trying to note what he did, it seems as though you are trying to connect what he did with the university. Its unnecessary to put details that has nothing to do with the university just like the university has no bearing on how governors eventually governed their state.NyRoc (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Is showing there is a history of trouble at St. John's..." I think this sums up 208.120.47.96's contributions to this wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I keep noticing things... Can you please explain why you keep undoing my updates to the opening paragraph with updated information about the school, the correct logo (it's not a 'coat of arms') and addition of the library picture? Zeuscgp (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zeuscgp, simply because the guy was on the basketball team does not mean him being expelled is controversial. Furthermore, it was off campus. The university doesn't have control over every decision that students make. Besides, I'm pretty sure there have been many more students around the country that have been caught using marijuana and yet their criminal records aren't being splashed around the pages of Wikipedia. Furthermore, NYU has nothing on their infamous 'pot princess' so I fail to see why a random basketball player caught off campus with marijuana at St. John's deserves a place on the Wikipedia page.

As for the quotation is does not belong in the ranking section. The Ranking section is called 'Rankings' for a reason. The article does not have any methodology that goes with that statement and I think blatantly shows that whoever put that there was looking for every remotely negative thing to say about the school. Furthermore, arguing in favor of that quotation with things that happened afterward is not productive. That quote must be in the context that it was meant to be in which was the Faculty Strike. So putting it in the history section or the Faculty Strike article would be more relevant.

As for the controvery sections you mentioned. Duke University does not have one and Bob Jones is about the actual heads of the school and the doctrination issues at the school. Not random criminal acts. Nor does the Old Westbury one have an extensive list that seems to try and get every criminal act that was ever recorded. I highly doubt the students there are all angels.

Also too, when editing as Zeuscgp noted, you need to be aware that you undoing edits that have nothing to do with the controversy page. Do not revert the whole page. NyRoc (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The listing at St. John's may be more thorough than other schools, but all of it is substantiated. The pot princess was not an NCAA basketball player and amongst the top scorers on the team! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet she used her freshman dorm as her own drug market selling various drugs including cocaine. I think thats far more noteworthy than a student being caught smoking marijuana off campus. NyRoc (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying that an NCAA Basketball player who ended up playing for the Harlem Globetrotters [4] who hold the school record for 3 pointers in a season and a career [5] along with an NBA player Marcus Hatton isn't important. I can easily find a ton of students who were arrested for selling drugs at St. John's. The reason why the pot princess was a big deal is because NYU is a far better school than St. John's. It's like saying a student from Harvard was dealing drugs. If you want more st. john's stories you can look here. [6] . Here is another story of the school abusing a student [7] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you personally feel that NYU is better than St. John's. NYU too has had several incidences on its campus that can be easily researched on their newspaper's, The Washington Square News, website. Why aren't you going there and taking at all the assaults and rape accusations from there and putting them on NYU's pages? And are you seriously insinuating that the school is made up of drug dealers? You have a vendetta against the school. Furthermore the university did not "abuse" that student in the article. He is being charged and hence the school took measures. He even admits that once he is exonerated of his crime that the SJU stuff will work itself out. Again you take stories and try and spin them as negatively as you can.NyRoc (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ok both of you need to calm down. He works on one article let him do it. You are the one who brought up NYU, not him. He did not say that St. John's is made up of drug dealers, he was making a point of something else. I don't think that Willie Shaw should be expanded on though. The University didn't abuse the student in the article? The University took away the students scholarship and stated that he owes them money. 150.210.226.2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I brought up NYU to make the point that, that school too has had crime on its campus that was covered by the media but isn't stated in its wikipedia page. Secondly, his comment about NYU students dealing drugs is "like Harvard Students dealing drugs" is making the implication that SJU students are more likely too. Finally, the article states the student was charged due to the drugs and guns found in the home he shared. So the school took measures due to his charges as is their policy. The student even states that once he is found not guilty, the SJU issue will work itself out. NyRoc (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also too, you said "Gun men on campus, shootings on campus, rapes on campus, alleged attempts at child endangerment by Priests on campus, least happy students. The list is pretty big." Please tell me which universities don't have rapes or some kind of violence on their campus? Your quotation insinuates an exaggerated history. First off, there has been only one priest that was arrested so why use a plural noun? Rapes are unfortunately not rare in universities and the shootings that actual happened on campus was one it seems. The other gunman which happened after the Virginia Tech massacre was apprehended within 10 minutes of his arrival to the campus. NyRoc (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A school that doesnt have rapes? Cooper Union . Shootings on campus? Dowling College . Then Gun man who did shoot the football player was not apprehended. The football player is now paralyzed! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are once again only giving partial/non-comparable information: Cooper-918 students, Dowling-6,500, St. John's-20,069.

You also have not answered my previous questions. Come on man, this is Wiki, not a vendetta blog. Zeuscgp (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

- Again there was one shooting on campus from what I can find and the assailant WAS arrested. Christopher Prince was the assailant and Cory Mitchell was the victim. The entry on the article page has their names mixed up. Furthermore, just because Cooper Union, a school of 920 students, didn't have a rape case, does not mean that every rape case/accusation throughout St. John's history needs to be placed here. Point being, rape accusations/cases are not exclusive to St. John's and thus not every one of them needs to be documented here. Again I understand the two team rape cases but the other is simply not controversial.NyRoc (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok someone stated name a school that doesn't have rapes or shootings. I named a few and now you're more specific looking for a way around it. If the names of the shooter and the victim are mixed up you can fix it! The number of students on the Queens Campus is maybe 13,000. The other campus' have the other students. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"The shuttle bus is actually in front of the campus. If you've seen the campus it is easily noted that this is the case. The off campus dorms don't really have a huge population. Thus a small bus can service it"

This statment is incorrect. The picture is of a bus you can find on campus but it is not THE shuttle bus used to transport students to differnet campuses and apartments. I KNOW this because I have ridden the actual bus, so it is little use to argue with someone who has firsthand KNOWLEDGE of this issue. You need only look on the university website to see the pic of the actual shuttle bus so further attempts to argue this can only be interpreted as less than genuine now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.164.174 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Images of the correct buses can be found here (http://www.stjohns.edu/services/shuttle/locations.stj). That is not even the front of the campus. That is the rear by the ROTC building. Zeuscgp (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be a better photo (although I do think a picture of a bus of any kind is rather cheesy) in the Wiki Commons.NyRoc (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So remove the photo of the bus. It's really not that big of a deal. It's not like I placed it up! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be blatantly obvious by now that 208.120.47.96, perhaps also known as "uconnstud" is a malevolent vandal with an ax to grind and should be treated as such. Several inconsistensies and innacuracies with this guys "contributions" have been pointed out. It should be as plain as day what he really is by now. The fact that someone like him is able to hijack an article and destroy its quality is why educated adults dont consider wikipedia a reliable source of information. The only reason i am even bothering is because naive high school children take this site more seriously than they should and dont know to be more wary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.244.82 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have my suspicions as well. NyRoc (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What is up with these personal attacks? Was I the one who put in the thing about the priests who was sending out porn to kids? Ax to grind? sorry i believe in putting a whole thing in. the whole picture. [8] not a flowery picture that isn't true! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But some of your information is not correct and misleading. As NyRoc pointed out, your information on the 2001 was incomplete and 2004 basketball team scandal is incorrect. (If it was you,) you did a bad job of copy&pasting in the Pakastani bullet (which should be removed), "were detained by Times Square while..." Smoking marijuana off campus and then Mike Jarvis was fired... Was this really is cause of his firing? Once again, why were you reverting my opening paragraph and picture changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ok if there is information that isn't correct, then fix it. i don't see why you would simply delete information that is true. Jarvis' firing was for a number of reasons the last straw included the non control of players. [9] The president of the school made a statement of the culture of the team which was construed as being racist in nature. [10] [11] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment considering you've undid my two and only updates to this wiki. You've also have ignored my past three questions asking as to why you've done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that serious? alright, all you have to do is add your update to both versions of the article. so that no matter what, you contributions will be there. 150.210.226.2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

I have asked for outside opinion through the editor assistance and through the Universities WikiProject page. Hopefully others will come and help us deal with the dispute. NyRoc (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance (and as an outside observer), it seems that the "controversies" section is rather lengthy and excessive. I don't think it is necessary, nor beneficial, to list all (major) controversies that have occurred at a university unless there is a clearly articulated reason for doing so. Even the Duke incident wasn't given much mention in the Duke University article, despite the fact that it was significant enough to warrant its own individual article. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 00:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Little Alien. The "controversies" section seems to be a laundry list with little encyclopedic treatment of how any of these given events had any major impact. Certainly, many universities have had incidents of student drug use, students accused of crimes, and so on. I think these incidents are given undue weight in many cases by including specific incidents without any indication of why these events are exceptional or hold long-term relevance to the article's subject. I would suggest trimming it down to the few exceptional cases that have had significant, long-term impact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNI Review and Reassessment

As requested per post at WT:UNI#Requesting comment for St. John's University (New_York), I have reviewed the article, especially pertaining to the controversy section. First, I'd like to point out that this article does not (by a long shot), conform to the Article Guidelines set by WikiProject Universities for all college and university articles, located at WP:UNIGUIDE. This article will require extreme restructuring, copyediting, as well as extensive merging. Regarding the controversy sections, they sound like trivia to me. However, I cannot dismiss all of those as unencyclopedic. What I would suggest is to have the major "news-breaking" historic facts about the university to be included in the history section. There is no need for an entire section to be named "controversies", as it serves no purpose other than to inflict negative light to the article's subject. I would be WP:BOLD and edit some of this so that the controversy section would at least be structured so that the lines are grammatically correct, but I digress. Please work out your differences or to agree to disagree. There is no such thing as a one-way street for online collaboration. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am always dubious of adding a stand-alone controversy section as that inevitably lowers the bar for including trivial material. This is not to say that they should not be included, only that bundling them all together into a section is not the best way to go about ensuring NPOV. A word of caution though, notability is not temporary: whatever controversy you want to introduce into the article must be of sufficient importance to warrant mention 5, 10, or 50 years from now. If you wouldn't mention the a similar controversy that occured 25 years ago in the article, that should be a good indication that you wouldn't include it now. As it stands, there is a lot of wasted breath about this controversy because so much of the rest of the article is in desperate need of improvement. I would encourage editors to visit WP:UNIGUIDE and work to build up the article in these respects rather than splitting hairs about the controversy. Reviewing the discussion, it seems that this "controversy" is trying to make this section/article into a coatrack-like meditation on the player in question rather than reflecting any specific institutional controversy. If the members of the basketball team had been exposed as a part of some drug network and this behavior was implicitly condoned by the coach or administration in some way, that would be a controversy worthy of note. Based upon my reading of it, the dalliances of a single person do not reflect upon the institution generally and should not be included in the article; one would no more indict USC for having graduated OJ Simpson. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't even read the current controversy section until now. The whole thing needs to go. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A university's WP article should not be a police blotter. The vast majority of universities have had crimes committed on its premises by its students at some point in its history. That doesn't make them notable and collecting individual incidents does not reflect on the institution as a whole. Indeed, I'm one of the editors who fights the hardest against letting WP articles naively paint universities in romantic overtones, but I find this section gratuitous and unbecoming of the standard we set for Wikipedia articles on colleges & universities. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you all for taking your time to respond and help out. I hope you will continue to monitor the article so it can become can become (at the least) a decent one. NyRoc (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An unregistered IP removed the " controversies" section, and it was immediately (and incorrectly) reverted as vandalism. I suggest that it be removed by one of the editors of this page per Madcoverboy's comments. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay. I thought for some reason that was being kept there for a reason. I noticed Madcoverboy(talk) deleted some but not all so I wasn't sure as to do with them. I will remove it but will save the entries so we can investigate them further. Thanks. NyRoc (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There exists a need to remain vigilant in monitoring this particular page. The individual who has previously been adding the controversial & gratuitous content is unusually obsessive & dedicated and he will return in the future to try and damage this article by adding previously deleted content from his former 'controversey' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.244.82 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring

Well, it seems like the 'easiest' first step is to deal with the structuring of the article. Browsing through the featured universities at WP:UNIGUIDE, their main sections include, History, Academics, Campus(es), Student Life, Athletics, and Alumni. The St. John's corresponding sections could stay. Rankings, Tuition, Financial Aid and Centers and Institutions can go under Academics. Demographics, The Torch, Public Safety and Bread&Life could be under Student Life. A brief part about the campus growth could be in the history section with the full breakdown under Campuses. Zeuscgp (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You should really use ref tags for this article (i.e. --<ref> and </ref>) per WP:REF. This would move all of the external links that are currently contained within the body, to the end of the article, under the reference list. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start switching from [[ ]] as I work through this. Thanks for your input. Zeuscgp (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion can wait to try out once the basics are done but I was wondering about perhaps making a "Community Relations" sub topic? In that I think Bread and Life can be incorporated and also the expansion issue that currently is in the 'controversy' section. Furthermore the university seems to have some sort of business relationship with the surrounding local businesses that could be incorporated as well. I found that on their website but I'll see if I can find more sources. I'll help with the links as well. NyRoc (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I need to find the article, but I think St. John's gives the most blood in NYC at its Blood Drives. I don't know what else would qualify as 'wiki-worthy' but the new dorm off campus and Bread and Life would be perfect here. Zeuscgp (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I put that gender item in the controversy section as a note under the team listings. I don't see its usefulness to the article personally considering its year and the fact that it wasn't controversial but for now, I put it there. Because of that note though, I removed the list of 'defunct teams' as thats rather pointless and redundant with the note there. NyRoc (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Previious posts have proven definitively that the picture of the bus is incorrect. So why has it not yet been removed or replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.164.228 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update on the bus: Picture has been changed. NyRoc (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'm more than willing to roll up my sleeves and help y'all out later this week or weekend. In the meantime, continue to use the WP:UNIGUIDE to format the page and add content. I would encourage editors to seek out and incorporate important comparative descriptive information from the Carnegie Classifications and the Department of Education College Navigator, as well as accreditation information, fact book data, and common data set information. You can also track down some important historical information from the archives and news databases. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I figure it would be easier if I made each section a separate discussion piece here so things don't get lost. I've rewritten the history section to make it flow a little better and added some information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the header paragraph a bit, if you don't mind. I'll place a source for 1972. Also do you know if the school is considered a research university? I'm not exactly sure what that is in regards to but I've been looking at the headers of some other universities and saw they had it so was just wondering. NyRoc (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I put back the 1960 date. I was wrong about 1972, confused it for something else, sorry. NyRoc (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History

I've begun with the easy history of adding when each campus was added to the university. I've put the faculty strike in chronologically. Zeuscgp (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Academics

In regards to the Rankings section, I go by the edition right? Not the year it was actually ranked? NyRoc (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also too, I found this through Google Books,[12]. This may help as a source with the technical information regarding the school's programs and administrative functions. NyRoc (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This might actually be a good idea. I saw this on the Stony Brook Page

List of People Associated with Stony Brook University [13] and get rid of the contreversial events and only put in some public safety issues like here. [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.45.84 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Public safety doesn't need its own section or subsection. Put a paragraph under the campus section with reliable and verifiable crime statistics and be done with it. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Academically, it has never ranked high..."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842336,00.html This article, while allegedly in Time Magazine, has no author given and sounds more like a 'letter to the editor' than an actual piece reported by Time Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That particular comment has NO place in the article. It is a random and unqualified quote of subjective personal opinion made over 4 decades ago and has no significane whatsoever. the only concievable reason for the inclusion of this quote anywhere in the article would be to distort the image of the university and degrade the article. Yet someone continues to sneakily insert this quote into different parts of the article hoping it remains under the radar of other wiki contributers. I would advise checking all sections of this article for content previously deemed innapropriate and since removed. Someone is continuously reinserting this content into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.244.82 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Please review WP:CIT and use citation templates when updating references on the St. John's page. It's a little more work and somewhat unwieldy, but it's standard operating procedure and helps keep everything consistent. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Similiarly use the <ref name="repeated reference">{{citation template junk}}</ref> and <ref name="repeated reference"/> format to prevent duplicated citations to the same reference. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rankings and Tuition

I'm going to reinsert tuition as well as go back to the original ranking structure which is used by many other schools. Such as NYU [15] and Fordham [16] . 68.192.45.84 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tuition information is already in there. The fact that you can find one or two other articles that aren't in line with the vast majority of other school's styles (as well as every single FA & GA unviersity article) does not legitimate it - they are "wrong". Do not use embedded lists. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tuition increase is non-notable so I am removing it. All universities have had similar changes in college tuition owing to compounding: [17]. See university-specific data as well: [18][19][20][21][22] Madcoverboy (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The tuition increase also gives no point of reference. Is this higher or lower than the HEPI? And as noted, it does not take into account compounding over 14 years. Let's leave it out unless there is some significant press coverage about the issue. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2008/04/02/News/St.Johns.Not.To.Follow.In.Ivy.Leagues.Footsteps-3297824.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.47.96 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

student debt is 28k . http://www.projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-view.php?area=NY 208.120.47.96 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of your link on student debt? This is not a standard item in university articles, and there is nothing notable about the debt of these students. It is higher than some, lower than others. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that this information should absolutely be included in all university articles because it's important, neutral, reliable, and comparative. Put it in right along side tuition & fees and financial aid in the Academics section. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute about Recent Edits February 2009

Here we are yet again. I would like user 208.120.47.96 (talk) to explain his recent edits now that the page is locked.

1. The Rankings- Why did you insist on only placing the 2007 and 2008 for the 'Least Accessible Professors' when the 2009 ranking is already there? 2. Why concentrate only on that ranking and not do it for 'diverse student population' or the Washington Monthly one? 3. Why did you start to delete the intro for the notable alumni? In your history you made edits to NYU which also has an intro with a listing of alumni. Care to explain why that one remains but St. John's doesn't? NyRoc (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1) you deleted the 2007 so I did as well. 2) If you like I can delete the diverse student population and the washington monthly one as well if they are outdated. 3) NYU is by far a more presitigious university. I focused on a few things with NYU and not with St. John's. If you noticed my edits and didn't like something about NYU you are free to change it. That is what wikipedia is all about. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The ranking for "Least Accessible Professors" was already there. You were bringing up old rankings from previous editions. The editions came out annually so old ones are redundant. The Washington Monthly did not come out yet with its 2008 report. Thus, the 2007 version is the most up to date for that publication. I have no problem leaving the "least Happy Students" sentence that was orginally there so long as the WM remains and you don't deluge the negative categories with past rankings that don't matter any more while the the most up to date version is already on the page. 2. I meant why did you add the 2007 and 2008 rankings ONLY to the "Least Accessible Professors" category and not research the historical rankings for the "Most Diverse Student Population" or "Washington Monthly" to see if the school was on those before? 3. NYU's reputation has nothing to do with this. Its about format. You stated in the edit summary that because SJU already has an alumni page it didn't need an intro one. Well NYU has an alumni page why didn't you delete the intro if that is your actual logic? NyRoc (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

deal. reinsert least happy students and the WM can go back in. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, the "least Happy Students" sentence goes in and the WM sentence goes in.

However, further clarfication is needed. You deleted the Forbes and the newspaper award. I assume that was in relatiation for the deletion of the Least Happy student ranking. I now presume they may go back in with no strings attached? (Besides the reinserting of the least happy student thing)?

There is also the intro thing--May that return as well? NyRoc (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

are you willing to reinsert the 2007 and 2008 rankings for historical purposes? 208.120.47.96 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, for the sake of just ending the argument, once the page reopens lets put back what each deleted (Forbes, Newspaper Award, the two rankings you wanted, and the alumni intro) but to be balanced if the 'Diverse' ranking and the WM have St. John's in the previous edition then they should be allowed there too. NyRoc (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a hard time following the discussion above due to poor formatting, but what I gathered I want to remind editors that quid-pro-quo is not consensus and this tit-for-tat editing using NYU as a precedent or model is likewise inappropriate. WP:UNIGUIDE and university FAs should be your templates, not another local school with a very imperfect article itself. Furthermore, historical rankings have no place in the article; use only the most recent and verifiable rankings and notable ones at that. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. To clarify by 'most recent and verifiable rankings', do you mean per publication? So for example, the Washington Monthly one was from 2007 as the 2008 or 2009 versions do not seem to be out yet or is that 'outdated' regardless if its the most up to date for the publication? NyRoc (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If Washington Monthly has 2008 and 2007 available, use 2008. If 2009 is going to come out soon, use 2008 until it comes out. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

simply establishing a norm. basically saying that the inaccessible teaching isn't a one time thing but something that has been historical. Madcoverboy, NYU is not another local school, but a highly ranked national university with the highest enrollment of any private school in the nation. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NYU's reputation and enrollment have absolutely no bearing on the quality of its Wikipedia page and NYU's article needs substantial cleanup in its own right. There's no reason to use NYU or Columbia as a template for St. John's simply because they're located in the same city. Use a university which has already achieved FA as a template to model the article: Texas A&M, Duke University, University of Michigan, Dartmouth College, and Georgetown University all have far superior pages to the NYU article. If they're all doing something that this article or NYU is not doing, chances are very good that St. Johns and NYU need to change. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't claim 'a norm' of inaccessible teaching because its been in a ranking for ONE publication for three years. You're putting too much authority on one publication. NyRoc (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

possibly not considering we already have 2 other things from one publication including "Best Northeastern College" and ranked 17th for "diverse student population. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I suppose we'll just leave it as is then considering we can't come to an agreement on the ones that have been deleted. NyRoc (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Housing Protest

[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

QGazette and The Torch are the only reliable sources among all of those. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The dorm issue is already in the article. NyRoc (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Report Card

c+ rating [28] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2008/05/students-against-st-johns-university.html 208.120.47.96 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Basketball Article

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html 208.120.47.96 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Must Intercede to Eliminate Biased Contributions

This afternoon, I slightly edited the St. John's article to 1) eliminate an entirely unnecessary quote from a 1965 issue of Time magazine that said St. John's has never ranked high among Catholic colleges (a 44-year-old quote); and 2) to clarify the addition of housing on the Queens and Staten Island campuses. Within a couple of hours, someone re-edited the page to read as before. This is reminiscent of a time two years ago when a clearly biased person was disparaging St. John's by adding the kind of content that does not appear on any other college site. Apparently, this person has some sense of ownership over the article, otherwise he or she would have never changed such an innocuous revision as the one I made. Let's be clear -- the placement of the Time quote about "never ranked high" makes it look as if the University is still regarded this way, and it really is irrelevant to the issue of the troubles; in addition, there is insufficient information about housing. This has been going on for some time and demands a thorough review from Wikipedia's facilitators.Newyorkborn (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

This Seems to Be an Ongoing Problem

I just posted a comment about the way a contributor exercises "ownership" over the St. John's article to an unprecedented degree, usually to insert irrelevant and inflammatory information. This came to my attention once again because I just completed a totally innocent "edit" earlier today, eliminating a prominently place and wholly irrelevant Time magazine quote saying the University does not rank high -- from 1965, of all things -- and to add info about housing. Within less than two hours, the person had restored the original comments. This same person has added out-of-context information about "scandals" without allowing anyone to insert recent information about the University's achievements. I DO believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, but this habit of a contributor to insert biased, wholly irrelevant material about a major private university and THEN prevent anyone else from slightly adjusting it does require attention from Wikipedia, especially if Wikipedia is to maintain its reputation for excellence in its articles. By the way, this sense of "ownership" amounts to a hijacking of the St. John's page, and it's been going on for some time now. Will someone responsible party at Wikipedia please review this and inject some accountability? Newyorkborn (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) newyorkborn

A Block is Needed Against IP 208.120.47.96

I promise I do not mean any disrespect for any contributor, but I have reviewed the history of one contributor in particular -- from IP 208.120.47.96 -- and it seems this person is using the same "tactics" for hijacking the St. John's University page as he or she has used on other pages. In fact, this approach led to an earlier attempt by Wikipedia to eliminate biased language on the St. John's page -- and now this contributor seems to be finding new ways to insert more biased, irrelevant info. I BEG Wikipedia's responsible facilitators to block IP 208.120.47.96 from changing honest, unbiased edits to the St. John's page -- edits like the ones I made earlier today to eliminate an irrelevant, biased comment from a 1965 issue of Time magazine and to update housing info. Again, I BEG Wikipedia to prevent the ongoing, biased hijacking of a page about a major, respected university, a page that is viewed by millions around the world. There is no room for constant attempts to discredit any institution -- not just for the sake of the institution, but for the credibility of the editing process itself. Newyorkborn (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) newyorkborn

I'm too new to know exactly how these things work, but I don't think there are people formally patrolling for the message you posted, and even if an admin sees it, I think they would expect you to take the first steps. I'll poke around and see if I can find some better advice - including the appropriate warnings to provide.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Restoring Modest Edits

I want to personally thank whoever at Wikipedia restored the minor, but I believe beneficial, edits I made yesterday afternoon to the St. John's University page. As I indicated, the edits involved adding a line about housing at Staten Island; eliminating an phrase to the line about housing at Queens; and eliminating an entirely misleading and irrelevant quote from a 1965 issue of Time magazine that included a comment about the University's standing at that time -- a quote that, in its entirety, had nothing to do with the point, which ostensibly concerned a pivotal strike in the University's history, the kind of strike that was fairly common among universities in the sixties. My main concern was that one "contributor" continued to arbitrarily prevent and delete revisions in favor of statements that had been added to create a negative impression of the University. I've been looking at this page for two years, so I know that this same person -- or persons -- have been responsible for a strange, biased "ownership" over the page. My concern was this: Wikipedia's success is based on the notion that responsible edits can be made without overt bias. Wikipedia is based on the notion of collective good. The persons who have continued to try to hijack the St. John's page clearly have a grudge against the University (for example, Wikipedia had kindly permitted positive changes in the page to avoid bias by following a template, but as you'll see from the "Athletics" Section, the biased "editor" has added irrelevant bullets about scattered difficulties in the Athletics programs -- difficulties the person had originally included in a "Scandals" section he or she arbitrarily created. Back to the point: Wikipedia is based on contributions of good will that lead to constant improvements. The biased "editor" who had eliminated my modest revisions in favor of negative language has consistently taken it upon himself to reverse positive edits, exercising an illegitimate "ownership" over the page. I surmise that this person may be a disgruntled former employee or student, presumably in a computer-related field, since he seems always on hand to monitor the page. In any case, on behalf of all contributors of good will, I thank Wikipedia for maintaining its high standards against biased "editors." Newyorkborn (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

good for history section of st john's university?

Its pretty easy to find things about the university, but that doesn't mean that it was all inserted into the article. What is trying to be presented in the article is basically a balanced approach.

http://gothamist.com/2007/09/29/st_johns_gunman.php http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30917FD3E5812738DDDA10894DB405B858AF1D3 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A13FF3E5812738DDDAE0894DB405B858AF1D3 http://www.nypost.com/seven/12222008/news/regionalnews/st__johns_30m_suit_vs__ex_prof_145413.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I94_0118.htm http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/13/nyregion/gay-groups-are-opposed-at-st-john-s.html http://www.gdsnet.org/classes/JimKeadyPressCoverage.pdf http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/1997/02/25/1997-02-25_st__john_s_hit_with_bias_sui.html Charles Plock http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/10/11/2008-10-11_st_johns_priest_in_cybersex_video_sting_.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/10/10/2008-10-10_st_johns_university_priest_accused_of_se-3.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-122287354.html http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2009/04/22/EditorialsAndOpinion/Gate-7.Has.A.Long.History.With.Queens.Students-3720912.shtml 208.120.47.96 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also must respond to the posting, "Good for History Section of St. John's University." The "contributor," the same individual who has repeatedly added unfavorable info about the university, suggests that the "sources" he's using provide "a balanced approach." Sadly, he makes the following errors: 1) everything he chooses to look focuses on something that sounds unfavorable; 2) he or she ignores the many articles that speak favorably of the university; and 3) unleashing a "race' to counter every "unfavorable" suggestion with a "favorable" one is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article of this sort. The purpose, as any review of World Book, Britannica, etc. -- or Wikipedia -- will demonstrate is to provide a balanced overview of the University, its mission, its demographics, the courses offered and some sense of history. For example, the Athletics section cites outdated statistics that focus on low points in the University's Athletics program, all posted by the same individual -- yet a truly balanced approach would also focus on stats and info about, say, business success by former athletes, service, the number of athletes who have gone on to the Olympics or professional athletics, etc. That would be balanced. Yet this contributor creates an unbalanced perspective by constantly unearthing and posting negatives WITHOUT any "balancing" positives, of which there are many. Clearly, there is a purpose here. Also, the contributor -- as my posts above show -- constantly hijacks the page, deleting new posts and essentially waging control over the content. It is for this reason that I'm going to email the administrators with a full accounting of this situation.Newyorkborn (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

An Extra Thought/Request for Wikipedia

Once again, I thank Wikipedia for apparently restoring the modest, unbiased revisions I made to the St. John's page in spite of the continuing, well-documented efforts of an apparently biased contributor to hijack the page by preventing/deleting positive but unbiased, relevant edits in order to preserve negative language. Here is one extra request for Wikipedia: I've been reviewing other University pages, which provide a comprehensive overview of the universities (for example, Duke) in terms of history, recent "achievements" (construction, favorable press coverage, etc.). It occurs to me that a similar comprehensive review of St. John's has been impossible because of the documented "hijackings." I request that it might be possible to make edits in the future to note that the University 1) has almost completed a new student/academic center; 2) has received thanks from Mayor Bloomberg for joining other universities in a local sustainability effort; 3) has made the 2010 "Best Colleges" by Princeton Review. I speak as an alumnus who believes the University deserves coverage equal to that enjoyed by other universities. Again, if anyone wants to add irrelevant info about "scandals," etc., they MUST not interfere with relevant, valid edits that do not happen to be negative. I request that Wikipedia and its very dedicated facilitators continue to monitor revisions to this page to assure that a full picture of the University emerges without overt attempts at negativity. Thank you again, Newyorkborn (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) newyorkborn

I'm trying to follow your point, but struggling. First - "Wikipedia" did not restore anything - if something was restored, it was by an editor, just like you and me. Regarding the IP you complained about, I'm trying to find examples of problems. Can you point me to one specifically. I've looked at that person's contributions, and I'm not finding the smoking gun you imply is there. Regarding your proposed additions - the first isn't a big deal, but go ahead and add it. The second doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, IMO. The third might depend on how select it is - I've never heard of it, but maybe it is notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the insertion of the quote.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick -- Thank you very, very much for your comments and interest. I'm posting my response here because, frankly, I'm fairly new to the process of "getting involved" on Wikipedia and I didn't see how to respond by clicking "talk." (My embarrassing ignorance.) Here's the situation -- for two years, I've noticed that someone has consistently inserting negative, insinuating language about St. John's University to a degree that is entirely unprecedented among college and university pages. Two years ago, I even tried to correct some of the language, and I noticed that one or more persons seems to always be monitoring the page and quickly deletes contributor edits and restores or adds negative language. Following the history of discussions here, I noted that apparently one person in particular has been engaged in this behavior -- the IP in question -- and that one person who is listed as a frequent contributor was actually blocked in the past. (I do not know if he is being blocked now.) The IP address in question, in particular, seems to have engaged in biased, overbearing "hijacks" of other pages, leading to continuing disputes. Needless to say, it is clear to me that someone with a gripe against the University has taken it upon him or herself to control the content and tone of this page. Indeed, knowing that Wikipedia's success and credibility are based on good will, I was -- and remain -- shocked that this has gone on for so long. I have merely asked that, in a public document such as this, someone exercise responsible accountability by protecting content against those with a clear history of overtly biased, overbearing behavior. Again, I am grateful for your interest and concern.Newyorkborn (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

I also want to add that I've spoken with other observers, and apparently this page was actually 1) closed for a while in the past due to questions about bias, and 2) the page itself was reorganized to eliminate a series of sections the "contributor" in question created to focus on "Scandals," "Controversies," etc. When the page was re-structured (I don't know all the details) to read consistently with other university and college pages, apparently this "contributor" found subtle ways to re-insert, over time, overtly negative language. I feel very bad about this. Though it is typical in legal cases and logic to avoid "ad hominem" arguments, in this case, it seems necessary to place this problem in context, which clearly reveals a history of bias by one or more contributor, one of whom was blocked because his account was a "sock puppet" of another account. Clearly, Wikipedia does great good, but it can be very damaging, too, if this kind of behavior goes unchecked. Thank you, Newyorkborn (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

Requested Arbitration Regarding Edits

Just a note to all -- since my last round of minor, neutral, factual edits to the St. John's page were once again reversed by 208.120.47.96, in favor of language that seems irrelevant and negative, I have put in a formal request to Wikipedia for arbitration. I do hope that whatever happens, contributors will once again be able to edit this page without being arbitrarily reversed by those who seem to exercise illegal ownership over the content of the page. Thank you all for your interest and support. By the way, I fully agree to abide by whatever decision the Arbitration Committe makes, and I will let the matter end there. 149.68.154.168 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC) newyorkborn

You forgot to sign on and its been revealed your IP address of 149.68.154.168 a quick whois determined [29] that you in fact are writing from
OrgName: St. John's University
OrgID: SJU-1
Address: 8000 Utopia Parkway
City: Jamaica
at 11am on a weekday. Do you in fact work for a department at St. John's University? This page is not an extension of the school nor is it owned by the school. Please do not use this wikipedia article for marketing purposes. No need to delete your IP address [30]as it has been determined your relationship. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You basically just appealed to the Supreme Court without bothering to have the local court rule. Arbitration is for complex cases of user misconduct, not benign content disputes like this. Please review Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution before making a lot of noise and wasting a lot of time. There is nothing illegal going on here, so just talk it out. There is no deadline, so just cool your heels, lay out your arguments for including/excluding the content instead of writing diatribes directed against other editors and solicit feedback from other editors to develop a clear consensus by using WP:3O, WP:RFC, posting to related WikiProjects like WP:UNI and WP:NYC. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:RPP here until editors can calm down and develop a consensus on what to do with the disputed content. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a welcome message to Newyorkborn to give the editor more information on editing on Wikipedia. I'm assuming good faith. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at WT:UNI and WT:NYC about the dispute as well canvassing some neutral university-related editors for their input. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, presumably since in the past I've removed some spam from the article, and rather frequently work on university articles. As I see it, the strike is notable enough that it should have a prominent place. That section might even be expanded, since it is a important case with respect to academic faculty unions. The place to find materials is the relevant part of the AAUP journal Academe, and newspapers and education and labor law journals of the time. On the other hand, the relative academic status among other Catholic universities at the time of the strike almost 50 years ago is not something which deserves a prominent place. If it is used at all, it should be in context of a paragraph discussing the history of its academic standing at various periods. There are various usable sources for that. The emphasis on a section on academic standing should be the present position, though if it has improved (or failed to improve) over the past such information is certainly relevant also.

Nicely put - while I understand the desire of some not to have the quote, it is a real quote, and from the right time frame - however, as you point out, the substance is barely related to the subject of the strike. I agree. if the quote is relevant, it should be moved to a discussion of the academic standing over time.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We try to keep these articles free from spam and public relations language. We also do not make the vehicles for complaints about the school. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While here, a matter which bothers me more is the information on the members of one of the teams. The very end of an article is also a prominent place, and it should be possible to add some additional information about something else. DGG (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While this personal duke-out continues, I think we need to regroup the editors who have been asked to evaluate the situation and take a closer look at how we can come to a consensus to set the precedence on future edits of this article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Print costs

Printing from computer (black and white):

•10 cents per page •Students receive $40 free printing each semeseter on their StormCards – computer prints only, not photocopies

[http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/libraries/general/copy.stj although previously was free [31] good link. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is way too trivial for an encyclopedia and not unusual among universities. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation offer

I've mediated a fair number of disputes in my time here, and I'm a native New Yorker and have written numerous articles on colleges. I see this particular university article seems to be causing some distress among its participants. Since it appears the Arbitration Committee is unlikely to accept the case, I am offering my services as an informal mediator to help resolve the dispute. Newyorkborn and 208.120.47.96, would you be interested in such assistance? MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a mostly disinterested observer, but someone who has the page on my watch list, I'd welcome your help.--SPhilbrickT 00:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that newyorkborn actually works for the university and as a result is using this for PR purposes rather than a true altruistic purpose. I am wary of working with him. The page was fine for a long time and he came around out of nowhere and started accusing me of a number of things including calling me a disgruntled ex-employee (which I am not). 208.120.47.96 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are facts to come out as part of a mediation - do you think mediation would be helpful?--SPhilbrickT 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Having worked at our COI noticeboard for a bit, I like to think that there are two ways we can view potential conflicts of interest. One is the gut reaction to be suspicious of motives. However, I've usually found that assuming the best about motives can lead to creative opportunities. If someone in this discussion is associated with the college, they might be able to get us facts on the ground (from placards) or research information from libraries (like a college history). And if we are really lucky, they might be in a position with the administration to release documents to us, either about the college (via WP:OTRS) or from the public domain collection of the library. So, I'm not that concerned with COI being a killer issue in this dispute. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You weren't the subject of a personal attack that had to be removed "since his/her behavior seems to verge on unethical bias, something that is unacceptable for someone in a computer-related field, as this person seems to be. (Apparently, he's set up alerts to notify him when changes occur on this page, and he/she is apparently a disgruntled former employee of the university." [32] . That is where I lost Assuming good faith with this individual. --Contributions/208.120.47.96 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, editors who are interested set up a Help:Watchlist so we can watch out for changes. Here there is a dispute between apparently two newcomers, of whom one at least understands the benefits of having an account while the other has not yet learned about that. Neither, if I read their edit records correctly, is much interested in any but this article. So, it seems to me, both should get some experience editing in less controversial areas, and if they prefer not to, then the anonymous one should be consistently reverted since I don't see that either has any more substantial merit than having an account. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to treat unregistered editors differently solely because they're unregistered. They have as much right to edit articles as registered editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's make decisions on the basis of the content, not on status.While there are benefits to being registered, some choose not to, and I'd prefer not to automatically assume that edits by an unregistered person are bad. I see problems on both sides. I'll also note that neither of the main parties have either accepted or rejected mediation. Can either of you comment?--SPhilbrickT 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a good essay on this topic at Wikipedia:IPs are human too, I hope we could move past such minor distinctions in working on the article. MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem; then the edits they make can be the basis for judging. As it happens, a few days ago I entered a requested source about something called "Sun Yat-Sen Hall", and soon after the whole section was deleted with an anonymous explanation that it violated copyright. Were such a violation reasonably handled, the offending material would be removed, leaving a brief explanation and link to the information. Alas, the unreasonableness of the way it was done irritated me, thus disqualifying me from restoring the information about a matter of which I otherwise know nothing. Difficult to think of a greater foolishness than to get into an edit war with a fool over such a matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 23:14, 16 June 2009

No need for the personal attack by calling someone a fool! I am also fine with mediation. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To Mbizanz -- I want to thank you very much for your offer of mediation on this matter, and I want to apologize for not having been on this board for a few days. To be totally frank with you, I was too upset and emotionally drained by this to even look at Wikipedia. This situation with the editor in question -- and perhaps others -- is an absolute travesty. If you'll take an objective look at the discussion page for St. John's University, you'll see that the IP in question has used his resources and knowledge of Wikipedia to wage a negative campaign against the University for some time. Regarding my own IP, whether or not I'm affiliated with the Univeristy -- I happen to be a student and alumnus -- is NOT the issue, as you'll see from the public record of my own modest efforts. I do not mean to malign the biased person, but someone has to stop him from using unusual resources -- he seems to "never sleep" -- to hijack the St. John's page, exercising a strange censorship that prohibits the most innoccuous changes to the page unless they're negative. Also, I believe the person who put the block on my participation in the Discussion page is affiliated with the biased editor -- otherwise, why would he have remained silent throughout this issue until he felt entitled to block me. This is the problem with Wikipedia -- there is genuinely no oversight. By the way, if you'll google St. John's on Facebook, you'll see there's an imposter page that inserts the same negative, out-of-date rankings that this editor has inserted on the Wikipedia page. I'm sure this person is not bad -- he may be a real prince of a guy -- but this is just an affront to decency. Newyorkborn (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

Photo op

Anyway this year I became more a Wikiphotographer than editor, so my plan for tomorrow afternoon is to unfold my bike in Flushing or Corona, pedal on up to St John's, and take some pictures of whatever presents itself. Anyone who wants to point out the sights can tell me when and where to meet, or just look for a large white guy on a small black Brompton Bicycle and yell "Wikiwikiwiki!" or "Lookit da big dope on da little bike!" or otherwise attract my attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim the whole section was copy and pasted from the st john's website. That is why it was removed. Feel free to take as many photos as you feel like :) . I would love to see it. Also you could take a few photos of the former ROTC building and the dormitory. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 1 worked well and I got some nice pix in Corona but in the parking lot of Terrace on the Park I got a flat tire and the local branch bike shop broke my gearshift so I took it to the mother shop in Jackson Heights where it is awaiting a part. Nice people; just didn't understand my strange vehicle. By this time the sky had turned gloomy and so had my mood so I took the 7 train home and don't get another day off from work until middle next week. Meanwhile I hope someone who knows the place can find a way to put in a brief description of the deleted architcture and links to its tenants without violating someone's copyright or something. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias and Abuse of Editor's Rights on St. John's Page

To Mbizanz and other well-wishers of good conscience: First, I am grateful for the offers for mediation in this absolutely bizarre matter. I stayed away from this Discussion page since the suspect, unjustified block against me because, frankly, I was emotionally drained by the horrible, negative campaign that IP 208.120.47.96 -- and perhaps others -- have waged against a major private university. First, it is suspect that by macdoverboy only emerged to block me when he saw fit, rather than getting involved in this at all -- you can look at the history of the Discussions about this page to see that IP 208.120.47.96 has been hijacking this page for biased reasons for some time now. Second, I believe that macdoverboy's behavior suggests sympathy for -- if not affiliation with -- with IP 208.120.47.96. There's no other way to explain this.

Just for the record, I am a graduate student at and alumnus of St. John's, sbut an objective review of these Discussion pages will show that my IP address is entirely irrelevant. My past edits have been small and innoccuous, merely adding minor info and recasting blatantly negative and irrelevant info. Your review of these Discussion pages also will reveal that someone with a clear grudge against the University has repeatedly violated Wikipedia protocol by hijacking this page and using it to wage a negative campaign for at least two years. This person exercises illegitimate censorship by deleting anyone else's edits unless those edits are negative. This person's negative campaign also has stretched to Facebook. If you look at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Queens-NY/St-Johns-University/18125527028#, you'll find an imposter page for St. John's that contains out-of-date, negative "Rankings" and other content identical to the content IP 208.120.47.96 -- and perhaps macdoverboy -- have repeatedly inserted in the St. John's page. This is an absolute travesty. Believe me, I don't mean to malign this "editor" -- for all I know, he's a real prince of a guy -- but his character is not what I'm referring to at all, as I hope you will see -- I am referring to a clear pattern of biased insertions, hijacking of content, unjustified editorial control and downright censorship. Frankly, I can't believe that Wikipedia is tolerating such things. Can't any responsible part out there help at all? I thank you. Newyorkborn (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

You've made a lot of accusations on this one posting and a ton of personal attacks. You should be wary of this. Also I can't view the facebook page, can you tell me the name of the page so that I can look it up. Thanks 208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OMG!! The google facebook group that you spoke about has now been closed mysteriously by Facebook. I wonder why!! Don't worry we can see the cached version here [33] I do wonder who would have done this or contacted facebook to have this page closed when it was simply a FAN PAGE! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You really, really should be careful about making accusations against other editors and seeing conspirators everywhere; these things tend to get you no accommodation from other editors. I clearly state who I am, where I'm from, and what my biases are; if you want to read any more motives into that, that is your prerogative, but I will not have your baseless accusations tarnish my good name. Moreover, I will take action against any editor who continues to make unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks against me or any other good faith editor. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on "Edit War"

I would like to add a thought. I was blocked from making edits to the St. John's page after I repeatedly attempted to make minor, innocuous edits. They were immediately reversed, without comment or explanation, by the "contributor" in question. I was astonished. I attempted to make them again, and each time, the same thing happened. I was informed that I was in an "editing war." These are the edits:

1) This is the original phrasing for the second paragraph, which is on the page now: "As of 2008, the campus now contains seven dorms and a townhouse complex."

I changed it, in the interest of accuracy, to this: "The Queens campus now has seven student residence halls and a new residential townhouse complex."

2) The following change is more involved. Here is the original, which is currently in effect:

"The St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 was a protest by faculty at the university which began on January 4, 1966, and ended in June 1967. The strike began after 31 faculty members were dismissed in the fall of 1965 without due process, dismissals which some felt were a violation of the professors' academic freedom. The tension of that year was noted in Time Magazine stating,"Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools; in troubles, it outdoes them all." The strike ended without any reinstatements, but led to the widespread unionization of public college faculty in the New York City area. In 1970 arbitrators ruled that the university had not acted improperly."

I draw your attention to these points. First, the mention, in a history section of this event makes it seem as if it were a pivotal event that still has repercussions. A look at the campus today, and the media, show that it does not. Yet I would not be bold or inconsiderate enough to suggest wholly deleting the paragraph.

Now for the second issue. This concerns something that happened 43 years ago. It concerns ONLY (at least on the surface) a faculty strike. Look at the quote from Time magazine, which is so placed that it suggests the statement about academic quality still pertains 43 years later. Moreover, the statement "Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools" has NOTHING to do with the ostensible purpose of this paragraph in a "History" section, and it does not give the date of the quote, which is 1965.

I revised the first sentence this way: "St. John's University has grown considerably in the 43 years since the Faculty Strike of 1966-67, a protest by faculty that began on January 4, 1966, and ended in June 1967." Then I revised the sentence about the Time quote, in this way: "These "troubles" were noted in a 1965 issue of Time magazine, as well as other media."

That's all I did. Without explanation, the person involved repeatedly changed the revision and then claimed there was an editing war. Again, look at the history of this Discussion page. This has been going on for a while. It really does suggest a grudge against the University, and I believe it is clearly grounds for intervention.

Now, I'm tempted to re-edit the article, using the edits I've just described. And I believe that if I do, the "contributor" in question will automatically and arbitrarily reverse my edits. In that case, I ask all observers to come to your own conclusion and decide whether this is what Wikipedia is about. Thank you. Newyorkborn (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn.

Bowing Out

I want to thank those offering mediatorship, but it won't be necessary. I've decided that it's simply too draining and even futile to try to see this subject treated fairly. Again, the IP address in question -- and perhaps others who agree with him -- seems to possess a very sophisticated ability to immediately track and reverse changes, and I compliment him or her on this ability. It does exceed my own. So I'm bowing out, but I do hope that others of good will and stronger stomachs than my own will perhaps try to engage the IP "contributor" in question and have him or her re-assess his or her involvement with this page. Best to all. 67.83.77.6 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)newyorkborn

So I guess it all comes out. NewYorkBorn is indeed working for the university. He has edited just now and left his IP address [34]. A quick view of the Wiki contribution history details, that [35]

Revision as of 13:54, 9 April 2007 (edit)67.83.77.6 (talk)(The original page did not reflect St. John's prominence in education and the sciences. I serve in the Marketing and Communications Department at the University -- I updated this on April 9, 2007.)

I work in the University's Office of Marketing and Communications and have a Wikipedia account; have continued to make revisions that reflect names, info as described on the University's Web site.

So with all of this now being known. As a student and worker of a Vincentian school (St. John's University), which preaches from the school motto that "Christian education perfects the soul" and dedicated to serving the poor (Vincent de Paul), why have you viciously attacked users and attempted to take control of a webpage dedicated to the growth of knowledge?? 208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This Is Sad:

Okay, I’m new to all this, but I’ve got to put my two cents in. First, it looks like someone's really doing a hatchet job not only on the university, but on this poor “newyorkborn” person. Who cares what newyorkborn’s IP Address is, or if newyorkborn is even affiliated with St. John’s? Wikipedia is an open, public forum. You’d expect someone with an interest in the subject to contribute, right? Besides, every change that newyorkborn makes has looked a lot more objective and unbiased than what IP 208.120.47.96 is doing. Newyorkborn has laid out the case pretty well. I looked over the whole discussion history. None of newyorkborn’s edits or statements are overly pro-St. John’s, while everything IP 208.120.47.96 is doing obviously has a negative bias. What’s worse, this IP 208.120.47.96 does seem to be exerting censorship over the St. John’s pages – who appointed that user as the guardian of the page? Isn’t this against the spirit of Wikipedia? I looked over the discussion history, and IP 208.120.47.96 has been involved in disputes like this in the past, and everything seems to be negative. I also looked at that URL for facebook – very suspicious, since it does copy the exact rankings IP 208.120.47.96 has kept putting in here. The whole blocking thing with macdoverboy also looks very suspicious. Look, maybe IP 208.120.47.96 or a relative had a bad experience at St. John’s, but why blast the whole university? Look at all the time you spend on this. Shouldn’t you move on? It looks like newyorkborn has just been trying to be fair.Finesseman (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman

I have a suggestion. This whole situation can be settled if we all do the right thing. I read through the article and discussions again, and it really does seem like one user, IP 208.120.47.96, may have taken a bit more control than intended. So let's all agree to fix it. This is supposed to look like an encyclopedia article, right? Let's treat it like all the other university pages. Why not delete the Times quote? Like newyorkborn correctly said, the quote is 44 years old but the way it's used here sounds like it's current. It adds nothing to the info about the faculty strike anyway, so let's just get rid of it. I put it on the table for discussion. If it seems okay, I'll make the edit myself. If the edit is quickly reversed, then Houston, we've got a problem. What do you think? Are you with me? Finesseman (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman

It's such a coincidence as to how newyorkborn stop's coming around and than you come around with the same argument with the same personal insults. Wow, how did this happen. The quote, "The tension of that year was noted in Time Magazine stating,"Academically, it has never ranked high among Catholic schools; in troubles, it outdoes them all."[2]" Simply states the tensions of that year, so if u can read, how would it give the impression of it being current? It isn't ok to remove it, it is part of the history section of the school and is a quote by a major magazine. TIME MAGAZINE! It wasn't by some small rinky dink newsletter. What you are doing is censorship! Wikipedia is not about that! 208.120.47.96 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down, Now I see what the problem is. Where do you see ANYTHING resembling a personal insult or an insult of any type whatsoever? Do you think everyone who reads and agrees with newyorkborn's argument, and disagrees with you, is automatically involved with that person? For your information,I never even heard of newyorkborn OR you until I read this section. Anyone who reads this can see that an opinion about academic standing in 1965 has NOTHING to do with the tensions of a faculty strike. This would be true even if the Cogressional Record said it. If you really are objective, why don't you include a paragraph about some good recent things in the school's history, just to balance it out. Since the definition of censorship is preventing others from contributing publicly, you may want to look at what you're really doing here. I can see why others started arbitration over your handling of this matter, and I hope other users will share their opinion. Remember everyone has a voice here, not just one user. Finesseman (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman

why don't you read the quote, the quote is form time magazine and the link concerned the tensions of that year. if you bothered to read it you would see. everyone has a voice and by you demeaning others, nothing constructive can be built. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here? This is pretty strange, so could everyone please mull over the following. It looks like anyone who disagrees with one IP editor is automatically blacklisted. Listen,I have no connection to newyorkborn or IP 208.120.47.96, and Im not trying to take sides or "attack" anyone. I'm simply expressing my viewpoint about what I consider fair and objective in what's becoming a really interesting dispute. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. When I came across this section and saw the discussion, I expressed support for newyorkborn's argument that one editor is putting bizarre and irrelevant negative references in this article and found it similar to other negative posts on the Web. Now the IP editor has deleted the discussion sections I created yesterday and taken my text out of context by lumping it in the section above. On top of that, this IP has sent me an ominous message saying I'd be "blocked," and it looks like I'm being investigated too, just because this editor can't believe someone disagrees. What gives? By the way, your insistence on adding that Time quote in this article is like this: look at NYU's article. A few years ago NYU had a number of student suicides, with kids jumping off the top floor of the library. Using your logic, let's put a magazine quote about it real high up in the NYU article, very prominent. It's part of NYU history, right? Or let's put a magazine quote high up in Columbia's profile about student killings in their dorms. How long do you think those quotes would stay there? Probably not long, but go test it out. It's the same thing you're doing here. Listen, I'm not going to lose sleep over this, but what's right is what's right, and I can agree with this newyorkborn without being part of some conspiracy. How about being fair and PLEASE stop censoring my posts. Finesseman (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman.

Please advise. This is an alert to any Wikipedia editors monitoring this site. As you see, I posted my thoughts in this public forum earlier today. Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the history tab, and it looks like someone may have begun an “undo” on my post, which would be another example of censorship against a legitimate post that someone objects to just because they don’t like it. Can someone please check into this? Am I wrong? I hope so, since “undoing” a non-inflammatory, posted opinion on the basis of a disagreement would be highly unethical and qualify as real censorship. Thank you. Finesseman (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman.

How can one editor control the public discussion page?

I was right, and I'm asking other Wikipedia editors for help -- one editor is controlling the right of other users to decide how and what to post on this "discussion" page, which is supposed to be a public forum. Yesterday, as an independent user, I created two sections to contribute to the discussion about the dispute over negative bias on the St. John's page. For the second time, one editor, IP 208.120.47.96, arbitrarily altered my posts by "fixing" them, deleting my sections and lumping my text in another post. This creates the erroneous impression that I'm involved with another user that IP 208.120.47.96 has a running dispute with. This suggests that other users who disagreed with IP 208.120.47.96, were intimidated into leaving the discussion. As an independent user, I choose to make my posts under new section headings. I expect Wikipedia's editors to preserve the original comments as an accurate part of the history of these discussions. It is not an attack or insult to say that one editor controlling an article and even the discussion page is acting like "Big Brother," altering the public record of our discussions. Can anyone intervene. Finesseman (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman

May Join Those Who Go for Arbitration Against This Editor

When I posted my comments, I never expected to get this involved. But I see why others do. Anyone who disagrees with one editor is lumped in with other "dissenters" and intimidated into leaving. The intimidation comes from accusations, reversed edits and even tampering with users posts on the discussion page. One editor has been changing my comments. The history tab shows it's IP 208.120.47.96. Articles can be "fixed," but posts do not need any "fixes" -- they express the intent of the user. Tampering is the same as rewriting a public record. I may submit for arbitration. This isn't what Wikipedia is meant for. And my comments stand -- the attempt to keep the negative Time quote from 1965 is the same as putting a magazine quote about student suicides high up in the NYU article, slanted and out of place. Unless IP 208.120.47.96 stops "fixing" (distorting) my posts, I'll join the list of users who seek arbitration. Does anyone want to step up about this? Finesseman (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)finesseman

Maintaining Objectivity

This situation has deteriorated badly. Wikipedia is based on objectivity, good will and the fair promotion of knowledge. Here, there are three parties in an ongoing dispute: Party 1) viewers who support St. John’s University or merely believe it is being treated unfairly; Party 2) apparently a lone editor, IP 208.120.47.96, who has considerable control as a “gate-keeper” of the St. John’s article and has made edits that appear to be negative while reversing less negative ones; and Party 3) the mass of Wikipedia editors who apply objectivity and good will on behalf of the Wikipedia project. It is time for the first two Parties to step away so less emotionally involved editors can do their job. I do not fault the many viewers who have expressed indignation or incredulity about this situation. Finesseman is apparently a well-meaning viewer, makes sound points, but finds himself in a more complex situation than he initially realized. Newyorkborn became a little emotional but seemed genuinely concerned by a troubling situation. (Any affiliation with a university does not necessarily reflect bias, since bias depends only on the edits themselves. Other university articles do have contributors affiliated with those institutions.) As for IP 208.120.47.96, viewers can review the history of that editor’s involvement and draw their own conclusions. What’s important is to restore the integrity of this article compared to other university pieces on Wikipedia. Finesseman makes a valid point: there’s no prominent reference in NYU’s article to the student suicides of a few years ago, and nothing in Columbia University’s article about the spate of murders in student dorms. So in the St. John’s article it is out of place to insist on prominently displaying a negative magazine quote from a half-century ago that, in and of itself, does not address the topic. There are other negative tidbits sprinkled throughout, and some were a lot more prominent prior to previous arbitration. Nevertheless, let’s assume everyone was doing something they thought was right but became too emotionally involved. We must respectfully ask them to remove themselves, to allow an objective editorial process, and if need be, to allow more seasoned editors of the University pages to intervene on behalf of objectivity.Nycmedicman (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)nycmedicman

Sockpuppetry

Without commenting on any alleged content issues, I'm making sure that everyone involved here knows that we do not allow one editor to use multiple accounts to manipulate opinion. It's pretty clear that this is happening right now and it won't be tolerated. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So noted. The user of several single-purpose accounts on this debate with similar style and viewpoints is extremely telling. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I am reminded of the sci-fi story of the alien merchant, accused of plotting to thwart a native revolution, who replies, "What makes me think I'm interested in the squabble among drunken cockroaches that you call politics?" Neither side shows firm indication of sobering up. One of the socks (or newbies) had an inkling; they should divert their attention to NYU, Columbia or other articles until their track record shows that they understand what they're doing. As for substance, I like the idea of including the unpleasant Time quote in a less prominent place, and of mentioning the activities inside the Sun Yat-Sen Pavilion. These minor matters, however, can await the sobriety of these sometimes clever but seldom wise newbies. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)