Talk:Gonzaga University

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

Founding Discrepancy[edit]

How were degrees given in 1884 if the university was founded in 1887? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8003:E3A0:1901:4571:A383:AA49 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this discrepancy. 204.130.228.173 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User Gonzaga University created[edit]

This user attends or has attended
         GONZAGA          U N I V E R S I T Y

Template:User Gonzaga University now exists. Enjoy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive priests section -> missing History section[edit]

It looks somewhat odd having the section on abusive priests so high up in the article under its own heading, but at the movement we don't have an appropriate heading. We should definitely not relegate it to the very bottom of the article, in the bad habit of stuffing negative facts into a "Controversy" garbage dump section at the end. Typically on any given topic there is the intro, then History, then sections describing various aspects of the subject. If we had a history section, beginning with the founding of the university and running in chronological order, then the abusive priest material would be a sub-heading near the near of that. Like this: 

Contents

    1 History
        1.1 Founding
        1.2 Growth
        1.3 Some event
        1.4 Some other events
        1.5 Abusive priests sent to live on campus
    2 Campus
    3 Organization and administration
    4 Academics
        4.1 Admissions
        4.2 Rankings
    5 Athletics
        5.1 Intramural and club sports
    6 Student life
    7 Student publications
    8 Alumni
    9 See also
    10 References
    11 External links

For now it's OK but that's how I would improve it. It requires actually writing a history section so we have come content to go there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not even okay for now. First, I don't believe this content should even be on this article. Second, if it should be here it should be write down at the bottom. I say this for two reasons. First, if you read through the sources on this they say very, very little about the university at all. This thing is VERY tangential. The sources don't even describe anything that could be fairly characterised as being part of a history of Gonzaga University. Second, putting this information so high up in the article implies a connection to the university that was much more extensive than sources indicate. This is creates a very clear problem with undue weight and POV. If this thing stays at all, which it should not, it should be at the bottom of the article. It should also be re-written to remove all language unrelated to the subject and to remove inflammatory language. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that looks like it was an epic flash edit blitz/edit war. We can restore it to the July 21 version when the protection is lifted. I think its former location under “campus” is more appropriate than giving it its own section under "history", while this unquestionably happened *on campus* there is a question about how much input or knowledge the leaders of the University had. If we get more information at a later date that ties the university more directly into the decision making process then it would perhaps warrant its own section in under history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was hasty, it seems like we need to either clean up the 3 July version or revert to the 31st May version. I’m no longer so certain it doesn’t belong under history but I’m not sure that an independent section wouldn’t be WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to cast doubt and play devil's advocate here. The statement that Bea House is unquestionably on Campus is not entirely credible unless you have a source in support of that. I have done some online searching and it is difficult to connect the Bea House to Gonzaga University WITHOUT any reference that has to do with the event in question. Even the campus website search function returns nothing but articles in reference to the event in question. I believe minor edits may be in order for correctness. Per paragraph 3 of this statement by the university president the Bea House is not owned or operated by the college. While this statement might not be entirely truthful, I think a credible source directly opposing this statement might be necessary to justify wording the section as if Bea House is included in the campus. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting story is the most authoritative, its title is "These priests abused in Native villages for years. They retired on Gonzaga’s campus” and the article supports that assertion multiple times. Was it really necessary for you to play devils advocate before even skimming the sources? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it necessary to do so because I HAVE reviewed the sources, and the source you just referenced states "While the building appears on campus maps and is listed in the campus directory, it’s not officially part of the private Jesuit university. Cardinal Bea House is owned by the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church.". I am not here to say the event should be removed from the page, even though there is a case for that. I just want the details of the section to be as accurate as they can be. You are correct in saying the article repeatedly refers to the location as "on campus" but it also does so from a geographical standpoint, and makes the above clarification which directly opposes the concept that this building has a strong connection to the university. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be assuming that “on campus” and “university owned” are equivalent statements... They are not. College campuses often include independent or semi-independent entities in addition to wholly owned or leased buildings. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article as it currently stands. In viewing today's edit war I appear to have confused which version of the section was the original (and current) version. I agree now that the terminology in place is acceptable from a technical standpoint. I do however think the section's current location may be too prominent considering its connection to the university itself, and/or that the writing and presence of the section conveys a sense of responsibility on the universities part. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I want to propose a compromise regarding the headline. How does "Abusive priests sent to live at Bea House" sound? It is entirely true and allows to skip the argument about its location, at least with respect to the headline. I think this is a reasonable offer. What say you? 219.73.20.22 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in any way reasonable. The obvious intent is to hide the fact that this took place on campus. Readers can't be expected to recognize what or where Cardinal Bea House is. Which is exactly why you want to use that wording: to cloud the issue. You haven't cited any sources that dispute that this was on campus. You claim its tangential yet cite zero sources who argue that. As I demonstrate with the citations below, this is uncontroversial. You're pushing your POV and your opinions with no basis. You are contradicting reliable sources, and casting aspersions on sources which have been picked up and carried by other reputable media: Reveal's report was run on the Associated Press, printed in the Seattle Times, and treated as fact by several national Catholic media organizations. The University itself, as well as the Diocese and the Jesuits, all agree that this is not tangential, and none dispute that it was on campus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is an unreasonably conciliatory gesture towards your perspective. First, there is a lot more to say about Bea House than things related to abusive clergy. See this article for an example. It would make perfect sense to incorporate this material and change the name of the section to Cardinal Bea House. In any event the current header is POV and misleading because it implies that the university has meaningful control over the facility when they in fact do not. I support using the the words "on campus" as long as they are contextualised with language to the effect that it is clear that the university does not own, operate, or control the facility. The reliable sources laid out below offer similar context and we are required by Wikipedia's rules to be faithful to them. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources showing that nobody disputes this is ON CAMPUS, and nobody disputes it's relevant to GU[edit]

It is an undisputed fact that Cardinal Bea House and Jesuit House are on the GU campus. The Spokane newspapers and TV say so. The GU president says so. The Diocese of Spokane says so. The current campus map published by Gonzaga shows the clearly marked boundaries of the campus, and places it inside those boundaries, one building away from the Quad at the heart of the campus. Not "near" the campus. On the campus. The sources above also report that the priests had free run of the campus of which they lived in the middle of, and regular, unlimited, unsupervised contact with the students. These facts are not in dispute. No reliable sources say, "No, it wasn't really on campus." No reliable sources say this issue is tangential. No reliable sources say it isn't relevant to GU. The Diocese, the Jesuits, Catholic media, GU's president all say it is important and relevant to GU.

It is true that corporate entity Gonzaga University is not the owner of Cardinal Bea House and Jesuit House. They are owned operated by a different legal entity, the Jesuit Order. None of the reliable sources cited here treat that as meaningful or significant. None say "technically, it's not part of GU" or "technically it's not on the Gonzaga campus". No sources say that because it's not "technically" part of GU, it isn't relevant or isn't the responsibility of the University.

This is not a controversial question. There is universal agreement on the basic fact that this was on the GU campus and that it mattered a great deal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note that many of these same articles call this "fact" into question by noting that the university does not own or control Cardinal Bea House. Also, it appears that these sources are uncritically repeating what was said in the initial piece of investigative journalism that brought this to everyone's attention? If we are going to say that Bea House is on campus we should not do so in the headline because that implies a degree of control by the university that simply wasn't there. We should say this in the body and contextualise with the fact that the university has no ownership or control over this facility. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently the only one contending that saying its on campus implies direct control, it quite obviously doesn’t. As it currently stands there is no factual dispute over whether or not the house is on campus, you’re presenting a WP:OR and WP:FRINGE view which is completely unsupported by the text. Saying that the university doesn't own the Bea house does literally nothing to “call this "fact" into question” as ownership is not contingent in the whole idea of being on campus. WP:LISTEN. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true it would not make me wrong. The argument from authority is a fallacy. It also happens that if you read through this monstrous talk page you will find that another editor has expressed a concern that is almost the same. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Authority? Good sources are the authority we defer to. WP:WEIGHT is determined by sources, not us. An idea found in no source is original research. Implying that it’s not really on campus, editorializing or casting double on that, is treating facts as opinions, which is not NPOV. It’s OK to say matter of factly, in the same tone as our sources, that GU is not the property owner. But not to imply anything by that. I’ve written half a history of GU, allowing the section to be folded into that, rather than all on its own.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is not such thing as “The argument from authority” fallacy on wikipedia, thats literally how we operate. I think you will note that the other editor has concerns (which I share) about the relevant place to put the text and/or subsection (the current version being a little too on the nose), but acknowledges campus means campus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just say that if we are going to say that Cardinal Bea House is "on campus" we should properly contextualize it, just like the most reliable source regarding this affair did. What is fringe about that? Nothing at all. It is a straightforward application of Wikipedia's rules to faithfully reproduce the facts contained in sources. And if we really want to be accurate and fair we should say that the facility is located "amid the campus." 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please attack some other straw man. You knew very well that I was not challenging Wikipedia's sourcing rules. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what were you doing? I don’t get it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that any factual assertion about Wikipedia policy and practice as well as any factual assertion about what is in a source is true or false regardless of the editor who happens to be making the claim. In this manner the argument from authority fallacy does creep into Wikipedia in a big way. Some very interesting scandals where people have lied about being subject matter experts and gotten all kinds of nutty stuff into articles have happened. Anyway, it was an aside. Don't read too much into it. This thread is already hard enough for the non-involved to read. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I totally see were you’re going now. I think we can all leave off until the page is open for editing again, I have faith that this group of editors can come to a consensus for a section under either campus or history that will appropriately summarize the relationship of Gonzaga University to the Bea House without being WP:UNDUE when given the chance. Until then we can really only snark at each other. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gonzaga_University&oldid=1207312869"