Talk:Furman University/Archive 1

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

Secret Society

Where does the mention of the Secret Society, "Riley Fox", come from? I move that it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.10.191 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Material

There's a fair bit of uncited material in this article, and it is my intention to work to improve that. Soon, I will be working on removing uncited material and searching for citations for said material. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please contribute by working to provide citations for material in this article. I will also be working on Clemson University and University of South Carolina soon as well. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable Faculty

Everyone on the faculty is notable for one reason or another. We all love(d) our professors. But the "Notable Faculty" section is reserved for particularly notable faculty. This, of course, is a judgment call. There are no simple lines that separate the particularly notable from the all around good profs. Think about who would be notable to the objective reader. Please add names accordingly, as the skeptical eyes of Wikipedia are now (and always) upon you (and me). LegalSwoop 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The following professors have been removed from the "Notable Faculty" section (not because they aren't awesome professors, but because they aren't objectively noteworthy):

  • Brent Nelsen - Political Science
  • David Rutledge - Religion
  • A. Scott Henderson - Education

LegalSwoop 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Glen Halva-Neubauer - Political Science
  • Noel Kane-Maguire - Chemistry
  • Thomas Kazee - Political Science
  • Mark Kilstofte - Music
  • Lon Knight Jr. - Chemistry
  • Willard Pate - English

LegalSwoop 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Judith Grisel - Psychology
  • Jim Guth - Political Science
  • Charles Arrington - Chemistry
  • T. Lloyd Benson - History

LegalSwoop 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mark Kilstofte won the Prix de Rome a few years back, which puts him in fairly good company. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears that he won the Prix de Rome of the American Academy in Rome for 2002-2003, which is different. Wikipedia describes the prize as "prestigious." This may be the threshold of notability. I'm grappling with what constitutes notability in this context. For the time being, I'll put him back in the article with a mention of his prize. (Oh, and I saw the not you left me on my user page but I'm not sure how exactly to send a message in response!) LegalSwoop 01:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You can reply to notes either on your Talk page (I think I have yours watched), or if you want to be sure the other person sees it you can post to the other persons Talk page. You can get to my Talk page by clicking on the little Burn! on my signature. As far as Kilstofte, I don't really care either way, and I don't know much about what prize he won or not, I just know he won that. Thanks for your good work on the article! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, I'm a current music theory major at Furman. I linked Kilstofte's page as well as the Prix de Rome. But I was wondering why David Gross is listed as notable faculty as well. Is there some reason I don't know about for this? --Goodmanjaz 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Laura Wright - Chemistry

LegalSwoop 07:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

why is steppen murphy notable???

Comparable schools

Lately there have been some "comparable schools" added which are of dubious comparability. Assuming that the "comparable schools" section is desirable in this article, there are at least a few schools on this list that I would not consider comparable:

  • Grinnell College - In the midwest, different campus setting, a thousand fewer students, triple the endowment of Furman, much higher USNWR ranking.
  • University of Richmond - Significant post-graduate enrollment, much larger endowment, arguably in a different region (though Virginia is still the South).
  • Mercer University - Signigicant post-graduate enrollment, double the undergraduate population, different campus setting.
  • Wake Forest University - Significant post-graduate enrollment, 1,500 more undergrads, a "National University" according to USNWR (contra Furman, "Liberal Arts").

Therefore move to delete these schools from the list. Alternatively, and more importantly, I move that the entire section be deleted for the following reasons:

  • Determining comparable schools is a subjective evaluation.
  • The value of knowing comparable schools is questionable, as it is given in a list without exposition on the similarities and differences.
  • The "comparability" of the schools cannot be cited (see above).
  • Most importantly, none of the "comparable schools" has a comparable schools section.

If there are no objections, I will remove this section in a few days. LegalSwoop 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The section has been deleted. LegalSwoop 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bell Tower Photo

Can someone please put up another picture other than one of the belltower under renovation

I would put one up if I had one. Copyright restrictions prohibit us from throwing just any old picture up there. LegalSwoop 02:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this any better? Anet12

Football corrections

I did this when I wasn't logged in - forgot.

The NCAA nomenclature for football uses Roman numerals, not Arabic, so it is I-AA, not 1-AA.

Also, Lehigh University (a private school) was in the National Championship game in 1979 and lost.

Notable Alumni

Shouldn't the list of notable alumni be alphabetical? I have reverted the edits of Luzyfer to re-establish the alphabetic order of the notable Alumni. Or is there some other method of organization that I am missing? Tlmclain 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Convention

The category proposed by Special:Contributions/66.140.196.35, Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention seems rather broad. Although Furman was for many years under the umbrella of the SBC, they have not been for 15 years or so. The name of the category suggests a current affiliation; the category's heading cites the Southern Baptist Convention's list of colleges on their web site, of which Furman is not included. Is there some sort of consensus on this category? Goodmanjaz 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Furman was affiliated with the SBC until 1992 or so, at which point they disaffiliatied with that organization. I have removed the category link. --156.143.93.99 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) KeplerNiko

Notable Alumni - National Scholarship Winners

Yesterday, LaszloWalrus deleted a subsection of Notable Alumni entitled National Scholarship Winners, explaining, "winning a Rhodes Scholarship does not ipso facto make one notable." While I generally agree with this point, the fact that Furman University has had a number of individuals who have won national scholarships is notable. Moreover, some of the people noted may indeed be notable. In order to assist those interested in continuing to improve the article on Furman University, I have preserved the deleted text and references by moving it here to the talk page. --Tlmclain | Talk 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Fulbright Scholars - David Bumpass, Travis Hinkle, Megan Hundley, David M. Johnson, Christine Lawton, Alicia Leerssen, Stuart Rentz, Charles Sharpe
  • Barry M. Goldwater Scholarships[1] - Hans Bechtel, Derek Bruff, Jer-Chin "Luke" Chuang, Ginger Denison, John Dickson, Angela Hicks, Sarah Klapman, Erik Madsen, Scott P. Martin, Jess Riddle, Brittany Smith, Michelle Stewart, Mark Turlington, Michael Vagnini, Andrew M. Watkins
  • Luce Scholars[2] - Cass DuRant
  • James Madison Memorial Fellowship[3] - Tripp Jeffers
  • Andrew W. Mellon Fellowships in Humanistic Studies[4] - Craig Caldwell, Chris Palmer
  • George J. Mitchell Scholarship - Monica Bell, Hal Frampton, Jennifer Lambert
  • NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship[5] - Rebekah Potts
  • NSF Graduate Research Fellowship[6] - Hans Bechtel, Maggie Dossett, Jennifer Fox, Marion Martin, Ginger Turpin
  • Rhodes Scholarship - Robert W. Johnson
  • Rotary Scholarships - Anna Cox, Will Doerner, Felice Fergurson, Karen Guth, Elaine Kelly, Anna Lang, Jacob Schroeder, Sarah Scopel
  • Truman Scholarships - Monica Bell, Tomiko Brown, Brian Cromer, Ginger Denison, Beth Dotson, Cass DuRant, Adair Ford, Hal Frampton, Lewis Gossett, Mary Lee James, Jennifer Lambert, Chong Lo, Arianna McLain, Amy Powers, Eric Spitler, Lisa Stevens, Carrie Thompson, Lindsay Woolf
  • Morris K. Udall Foundation - Adrienne DuBois, Kartikeya Singh

Fair use rationale for Image:Furman Wordmark.gif

Image:Furman Wordmark.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate athletics article

In January 2009, a suggestion was posted to split the Athletics section into a separate article. I don't think that the main article is long enough to warrant spinning off the Athletics section. Let's keep them together for now. Racepacket (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alumni

I removed Victoria Jackson as an alum because she did not graduate from Furman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.139.97 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Most PhDs in the south claim

The link that supports this is dead. Does anybody know where to find another? It's a pretty big and also difficult to test claim. If no one finds another source, it probably needs to go. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Though not a great reliable source this link makes me doubt the claim a bit more. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Furman University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing merging Timmons Arena into this article. Given the brevity of the former article, it makes most sense not to leave it as a stand-alone article and instead merge it into the Furman University article. Should a merger occur, there will be no significant change in the length and content of the Furman University article. NJ (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose since all NCAA Division I basketball and football arenas are critical components in the history, lore, and culture of their respective programs. I would say an expansion of Timmons Arena is necessary, but not a merge. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I agree with Jrcla2. Corkythehornetfan 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merging the article in its current form. If it is significantly expanded then, of course, it would be suitable as a separate article. In particular, I disagree with Jrcla2's opinion that "all [emphasis added] NCAA Division I basketball and football arenas are critical components in the history, lore, and culture of their respective programs." I agree that the statement is true for many and perhaps even most arenas but it's unlikely that it's true for all programs especially those (programs or buildings) that are newer. In any case, if this building is notable then editors should write an article establishing that with sufficient independent sources. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose This article should be sustained but at its current state I understand the rationale for merging. If at least one paragraph (or more) of information can be added this article should be kept." With the frequent one liners that several college sports pages have, it makes little sense to NOT merge them until sufficient information can be added.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually wanted to close this, but then I saw that the merge tag was removed in June itself. I'm letting it stay on for some more opinions. However, presently the Timmons Arena is ripe for merging and there doesn't seem to have been any improvements since June. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose All division I stadiums have their own article. No reason for this to not.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not until a non-notability argument is given. It seems that the article has attracted little attention. It rather requires a tag inviting expansion. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 18:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added several tags to the Timmons Arena page. I invite the Wikipedia community to expand and add details to the page. NJ (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rankings section

Another editor has proposed numerous changes to the rankings section of this article and objected to some of my proposed changes. In general, my concerns are that this section (a) only include reputable rankings that are still relevant and relatively up-to-date (e.g., I'm not in favor of including rankings more than 10 years old) and (b) not be unduly self-serving and promotional. Conciseness is also a virtue.

One specific concern is the inclusion of other institutions in this section e.g., "Its undergraduate research program has been ranked as high as 4th in the US News Best Undergraduate Research Programs along with Stanford, MIT and Michigan.<emphasis added and reference omitted>." Readers interested in knowing how other institutions were ranked can view the reference; we don't need to include that information here, especially when the institutions listed are selected by Wikipedia editors presumably to paint as positive a picture of this institution as possible. ElKevbo (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Because some of the rankings are not recent is that the sentence "Over time, Furman has also been mentioned in other specialized lists such as" was put at the beginning. Some rankings get discontinued after a while for various reasons but that does not make the ranking or the report less legitimate. Obviously if you change the wording such as the sentence "Over time..." the information presented can sound less relevant. Re-wording is something that can be used by somebody such as yourself that perhaps comes into Wikipedia with an agenda to minimize or downgrade the achievements of an institution perhaps to make other institutions look better (your Alma matter perhaps or the institutions that fund your research?)
Regarding the "unnecessary words" that added the schools above which or along with Furman was ranked, I think its relevant in some cases to point out which schools competed in the ranking. When a small liberal arts schools competes in a ranking/report with big ivy league research universities is relevant to point that out since most rankings are usually divided between national research universities and liberal arts universities, you know that but of course you didnt come to the article of my alma matter to do us any favors.
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the rankings section of your Alma matter Indiana University reads "The Academic Ranking of World Universities ranked IU Bloomington 101–150 in the world and 49–60 nationally in 2017. The institution was ranked alongside Brown University and above schools like Dartmouth College, Georgetown University and University of Notre Dame". I dont see you editing that due to "unnecessary words"
Lastly, ElKevbo edits and reversal have not shown acting in good faith since he reversed my edit which took away notable alumni that were not that notable and added those that are more notable. He reversed my edit that included statistics about the numbers of scholars the university has produced in recent years which is something along with some rankings that All schools talk about in the upper section of their article so I do not think that adding that to this article, which lacked that on their upper section, is advertising as he claimed.
ElKevbo also deleted updated rankings due to reasons such as "it wasnt done by Forbes, but a contributor of Forbes", "this is not a ranking but a report"
ElKevbo is doing the same thing on numerous universities and his talkpage contains various disputes over similar incidents. User seems to only edit university pages and never pro the institutions but mainly against.RobertM87 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Cut out the personal attacks; they're unproductive and unwelcome.
If you think that old rankings should be retained for some reason, please make your case. And note that compiling old rankings to make a point that no one else has made is likely original research which is not accepted here. In other words, we should describe the university - including its rankings - as others have described it, not as we'd like to describe based on the specific rankings we think support our point of view. Specific old rankings may be helpful to include in specific historical contexts in the appropriate sections of the article but the intent of the rankings section is usually to describe contemporary rankings.
I agree that it could potentially be useful to describe other institutions included in rankings of this and other institutions to give readers some context. However, unless that is done systematically it will almost certainly devolve into editors cherry-picking only the comparisons that are favorable and make the institution look the best. Something like "include the institution(s) ranked immediately above this institution, other institutions tied for the same ranking, and the institution(s) ranked immediately below this institution" may be workable from a POV perspective but I worry that the material would then become too long. It's worth trying if you want to draft something for this institution so we can see how it plays out in practice!
The Forbes ranking that was previously included linked to an article written by a Forbes contributor. It's essentially a blog post and it's not a report written by a Forbes reporter or having the support of its editorial team; to the contrary, the editors specifically disavow any connections to pieces written by contributors.
The SSRN document that previously included was an NBER working paper but it was presented as a ranking compiled by SSRN. First, SSRN is a prepint host; it's not a publisher and it didn't compile the rankings. Second, the document was released (can we say that a working paper is ever "published?") in 2005. As already noted above, I object to us including rankings more than 10 years old; they're based on information that may not be reflective of the current or recent state of the institution. If this particular source were reinserted into the article, it must be accompanied by an accurate description.
If you have an objection to content in other articles then I recommend you either bring up your objections on the Talk pages of those articles or edit the articles.
Finally, since you have a connection to this institution you should review our conflict-of-interest policy. I don't think that most editors would consider someone to have a really strong COI with respect to their alma mater but it is certainly a potential conflict that should be minimized or avoided. ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not attacking you personally, I am attacking your edits and your past contributions
First, let me remind you again: 90% of the rankings that are written in the rankings sections are not my edits, they have been there for many years. You made it part of your "reversal bundle" of my edits and have attributed it to me. You used my few edits and source additions as licence to reword and delete rankings as part of the accomplishment diminishing of universities that you seem to be doing here in Wikipedia from looking at your contributions.
Second, old reports usually dont fall too far from contemporary reports when it comes to competitive schools. One example is the two rankings regarding commitment of national service. The one that was already there from Washington Monthly from 2005 corroborates the recent ranking from The Business Insider of 2016 that I added which ranked the university in the 5th spot in the same category 15 years after. Some rankings unfortunately are one time reports like the SSRN paper and dont function as a yearly ranking but its relevance or right to be in the section is earned due to the fact that it measured an area or statistic that has never or gets rarely studied/measured such as choice to enroll of high achieving students.
Third, the context for these historical rankings was set by the wording "Over time the university has appeared..." which you chose to reword basically taking away the context. If a rankings study was published for a few years in the past 15 years, its worth mentioning. Saying "Over time..." gives the reader a fair assessment that even though a university might not be ranked at the top of the ranking today it shows that it has a tradition or reputation of being competitive in a specific area and probably keeps trying hard to have that strength "polished" in order to live up to the reputation it had at some point in the last 15 years. I think this has already been demonstrated in point 2.
Fourth, mentioning other schools listed in the rankings has not been done systematically but only in the two rankings where Furman competed against national research universities. Furman is a tiny liberal arts school of less than 3,000 students so competing academically and in undergraduate research against ivy leagues and ranking above them merits mentioning it in the sentence.
Fifth, regarding the Forbes ranking of the best universities of the South you decided to delete. All the rankings published by Forbes are compiled/edited are done by contributors. The one that was already there that mentioned Furman as the best university in South Caroline is also edited and reported by contributors as you can see here https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/#59109c1d1987. The one that I added of the best universities of the South in 2018 comes from the same kind of source:contributors. In fact, a different contributor published the same ranking in 2019 as you can see in https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2019/08/15/25-top-colleges-and-universities-in-the-south-2019-ranked-by-academics-and-outcomes/#42d6ce534ada ranking Furman again on the same spot.
It seems that the one systematically cherry picking criteria to include or disregard a ranking is youRobertM87 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you go to https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/#d7b1daf19877 and select the South region listing you will see that Furman shows in the 21st spot of the best universities in the South of US just like the "contributors" have said in 2018 annd 2019.17:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)RobertM87 (talk)
Take a look at the top of one of the Forbes sources that you cited; next to the author's name you'll see that he is expressly identified as a "Contributor." And next to that you'll see a small icon that if you hover over will show a small notice that disavows the opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors. They're blog posts or op eds if you prefer that language. Whatever you call them, they're the opinions of that specific person without the editorial oversight of Forbes so they're typically evaluated as self-published sources. The new source that you've provided (or perhaps highlighted - apologies if I overlooked it!) is much better and I think it'd be fine to add the information back into the article using that source. ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already addressed the SSRN ranking report in the last sentence of the second point I made. I guess you "ignored" it to continue your reversals so lets repeat it. Some rankings unfortunately are one time reports like the SSRN paper and dont function as a yearly ranking but its relevance or right to be in the section is earned due to the fact that it measured an area or statistic that has never or gets rarely studied/measured such as choice to enroll of high achieving students.

This is a highly researched paper done by an independent and respected research institution not a business magazine and it measures an statistic that for unknown reasons business magazines have chosen to overlook. Acceptance rate and choice of enrolling are two very different things and the second is perhaps a very indicator of competitiveness of the student body of an university RobertM87 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It is wildly inaccurate to label that document an "SSRN ranking report." Once again, SSRN is a preprint host; it's not a journal, publisher, or ranking organization. Moreover, the document is clearly identified as an NBER working paper and SSRN is likely one of several places where you can find the document. If you're going to include this paper as a source in a Wikipedia article, you need to describe it accurately as an NBER working paper and perhaps even attribute it specifically to its authors (I think NBER working papers are considered the work of the authors and not of the NBER).
All of this is very basic information that is readily available in the cited source. You've also already been told all of this so continuing to inaccurately describe this document is difficult to distinguish from outright dishonesty. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok my apologies. I have added the right research organization. I have totally ignored this detail due to the SSRN describing itself as a research network, they make it sound as if they are a research organization as well.RobertM87 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Furman University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ivy League nonsense

Another editor is edit-warring to include an unsourced claim that Furman is "equivalent to an Ivy League university." His or her most recent attempt to insert this nonsense ("It is frequently referred to as a member of the Ivy League of the South") included this stellar source that doesn't come close to being reliable. His or her most recent edits also inserted self-published praise from the university ("internationally recognized as one of the premier liberal arts colleges in the United States, known for its outstanding academic program, with top-notch faculty and distinguished programs") citing this Furman University webpage.

This blatant POV-pushing nonsense needs to stop. The sources, when included, are poor. The claims are over-the-top and don't belong in an encyclopedia article unless supported by excellent sources.

This is a fine university and these misguided attempts to puff it up do it a disservice. Furman can stand on its own merits just fine without Wikipedia editors trying to blow it up into an international powerhouse. ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

These claims have now shifted to (a) a vague promotional statement from the university itself proclaiming its greatness and (b) quotes from Furman students about its membership in or equivalent to the Ivy League. I refer our colleague to this old essay that summarizes many of the discussions that have been held on this topic. This, of course, is also supported by core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:DUE.
In summary, if important people in reliable sources have extolled the virtues of this institution then it might be a good idea to include that in this article. But if the information is only self-created puffery then it doesn't warrant mention in this or any other encyclopedia article.
Of course, edit-warring to include this material to which multiple editors have objected is completely unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I just undid an edit where they actually claimed Furman was part of the Ivy League, so this is still going on 6 years later Chasepeeler (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Everyone, at this point, please go ahead and report the user who keeps preposterously claiming Furman is "in the Ivy League." They are clearly violating the rules of the Wikipedia community and have no respect for factual integrity. Whoever is doing this needs to be promptly reported—by multiple people. L'être et le néant (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Furman_University/Archive_1&oldid=1177289811"