Talk:Georgetown University/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposed format change of schools table

A discussion was begun regarding how to best format a table of the various schools that comprise Georgetown University. The current format is found in the Academics section. I propose migrating to the the format more commonly espoused by the articles of other universities such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, and Columbia. Additionally, as Patrickneil pointed out, the current table incorrectly denotes the School of Continuing Studies as undergraduate only. It is difficult to accurately reflect the schools in this manner since there are an unequal number of graduate and undergraduate schools, and that some schools offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.

I believe the formats linked above can more properly and clearly reflect the schools' statuses. The table for Georgetown would look like this:

Ergo Sum 21:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That was fast! I've gone ahead and implemented the change. Thanks again!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Ergo Sum 07:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition to lead section

The lead section should include somewhere that the governing body of Georgetown University is the President and Directors of Georgetown College. This is a newly-created article (in case you were wondering). Ergo Sum 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Tag

A conflict of interest tag was recently placed at the top of this article. A discussion should be had regarding the question it raises and the template's propriety of placement. Seeing as the user who placed the the template did not indicate any specific fault or leave any comment on this talk page and, upon reviewing the article, none is apparent to me, I am disinclined to maintain the tag. If possible, can @Yairr:, the initiator of the template on this article, weigh in? What are everyone else's thoughts? Ergo Sum 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Yairr's contributions list, the user added this tag to Duke University, Brown University, and Stanford University within 2 minutes. The tag was clearly misapplied in these cases, and I've removed it here. User ElKevbo (talk · contribs) has already removed it from the two of the other articles, and I see a discussion on the Stanford talk page about the user, who seems to be targeting U.S. university articles for "promo material" and "puffery." It may be a good idea to open these edits to a central discussion at WP:UNI.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors

All of the reference errors – "[e]xternal link in |work= (help)" – have been fixed. The methods used may not be ideal and could perhaps be refined, e.g. some instances changed "work" to "department" while others changed "work" to "website" (and in some of those cases eliminated "publisher" as "website" was preferred), some merged "work" with "website" (such as removing the external link for "Undergraduate Bulletin" and using "Georgetown University – Undergraduate Bulletin" as the "website"), etc.
The complete comparison of all changes I had made in 12 edits (to fix ~48 reference "work=" errors, ~19.6% of references) is here. (I am a bit surprised a featured article would have so many reference errors, but those may have occurred after FA status was granted...?) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Native Name in Infobox

It has come to my attention that many university articles on Wikipedia that are of high quality make use of the native name field in their infoboxes (which are predominately in Latin). Georgetown does have an equivalent. On the seal, it reads "Collegium Georgiopolitanum Ad Ripas Potomaci in Marylandia." This is verified here. Therefore, I recommend that the native name field be used to include either that or its abbreviated form, "Collegium Georgiopolitanum." Ergo Sum 23:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there are problems with this. I discussed this back in April, and I will say that there does seem to be some popular desire to have Latin in the infobox, since its come up every year or so, and typically Wikipedia articles should respond to desire. The obvious issue however with "Collegium Georgiopolitanum" is that its "College" not "University", and we do still have a Georgetown College that's not synonymous with the university. Universitas Georgiopolitana would be the Latin for "Georgetown University", but that's never been used on any official document. I'm comfortable saying that Georgetown doesn't have a Latin name, and that the Latin inscription around the seal is just that, an element of the seal, nothing more. I think that is disappointing, that an old university like this wouldn't have a Latin name, but trying to force one in just seems like unsourced fluffery. Lastly, while some articles do still use the "native_name" field for this, they did create a "latin_name" field for this purpose a while back.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do not know if there is an "official" Latin name for Georgetown. However, I doubt that such an official name exists for any university, yet many display one. Rather, a Latin name is adopted as custom over time. The reason for its reading as 'Georgetown College' and not 'Georgetown University' almost definitely dates back to the 1815 charter, which vests the corporate authority in the 'President and Directors of Georgetown College.' This is still the official name of Georgetown under law and in its charter of incorporation, though the 1966 charter amendment authorizes the aforementioned body to conduct business as 'Georgetown University.' Anyway, I don't think the lack of an official Latin name is grounds alone for withholding it from this article. Rather, it is a matter of judgement and how established such a name is. There is certainly evidence of such a name circulating in common, as is referenced by the link. Ergo Sum 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Patrick, I've just read your comments from April and I do think a sound argument can be made for excluding the name. However, aside from what I wrote above, I also think it's worth noting that the seal that bears this Latin inscription that I'm talking about was adopted in 1977, though it was originally conceived sometime between 1796 and 1803 (explanation). Therefore, there was a recognition that the seal bore the words "Collegium Georgiopolitanum..." yet was still applied as the seal of the entire university. I still think it comes down to a matter of preference and judgement whether to include or not. Ergo Sum 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, I have no evidence to say that "Collegium Georgiopolitanum Ad Ripas Potomaci in Marylandia" isn't the Latin name. I will say that it doesn't exactly fit the easy pattern. I did look up some other universities, and searching for their Latin names as listed here on Wikipedia just brought up trademark filings. While its interesting that Georgetown (like Villanova or Creighton) describe the Latin inscriptions, its still not a source that specifies the words as identifying the institution. One option I came up with, is that "caption" field which used to say "The seal of Georgetown University" might actually be put to use here with something like "The seal of Georgetown University reads Collegium Georgiopolitanum Ad Ripas Potomaci in Marylandia". By describing the seal, it adds the text to the infobox, without the issues of claiming it as an official name.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel particularly strongly that the Latin should be included at all costs. That may be a viable solution. Is there precedent for this? Ergo Sum 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a broader issue: Why in the world would anyone, especially readers of this encyclopedia, care about the Latin names of U.S. institutions? Why is this worth any of our time or space? Other than college seals and other obscure places, where is this information used? How is it useful for readers? ElKevbo (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with the premise of that question, I don't find a Latin name particularly informative for U.S. university articles in general and specifically here as well. Schools in the UK do use their Latin names in abbreviations, like the University of Oxford is Oxon in Latin and those that go there are called "Oxonians". That would be the test for me, whether it informs the reader about something relevant to understanding the school. One U.S. example where it is relevant, is for the University of Vermont, whose official name is indeed Universitas Viridis Montis, which explains to the reader why the school is abbreviated "UVM" and not using the postal abbreviation as "UVT".-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Georgetown University. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613025241/http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=749&PageTemplateID=52 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=749&PageTemplateID=52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

New lede

Editor's note: I recently introduced a new lede to the article but changes were reverted on the grounds that the text was too flowery. Having taken a second look, I now agree that using descriptors like "highly selective" and "especially well-known", while factually true, is perhaps too flowery. I had these descriptors removed/watered down to sound less pretentious, while expressing the same essence. That being said, are there other critiques of my proposed lede? Please find the latest proposal below.

Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. Founded in 1789 as Georgetown College, the university has since grown to include nine undergraduate and graduate schools, including the School of Foreign Service, School of Business, a Medical Center and a Law School. Georgetown's main campus is located on a hill above the Potomac River. It is recognizable by its flagship Healy Hall, a National Historic Landmark that towers over Washington's Georgetown neighborhood.

Georgetown offers degree programs in forty-eight disciplines, enrolling an average of 7,500 undergraduate and 10,000 post-graduate students from more than 130 countries. The university is especially renowned known for preparing leaders for careers in government and international affairs. As of 2015, Georgetown produced more diplomats for the U.S. Foreign Service than any other school in the country, while ranking second in the U.S. by the average number of its graduates serving in the U.S. Congress. Georgetown's notable alumni include U.S. President Bill Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, CIA Director George Tenet, actor Bradley Cooper, King Felipe VI of Spain, as well as the royalty and heads of state of more than a dozen countries.

Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit-affiliated institution of higher education in the United States. The Jesuits have participated in the university's academic life, both as scholars and as administrators, since 1805; Although Georgetown celebrates this rich religious heritage, the university has always been governed independently of the church. At present, more than half of Georgetown's students are estimated to be of non-Catholic or non-religious background. however, the university has always been governed independently of the church. At present, the majority of Georgetown students do not identify as Catholic.

Georgetown is home to the country's largest student-run business, as well as the largest student-run financial institution. The school’s athletic teams, nicknamed the Hoyas, include a men's basketball team that has won a record-tying seven Big East championships, appeared in five Final Fours, and won a national championship in 1984, as well as a co-ed sailing team that holds nine national championship and one world championship title.

Discussion

I personally think that the new introduction, as shown above, does a much better job of explaining both the nature and the strengths of Georgetown. The old intro claims that Georgetown's graduates "are prominent in public life", yet does not provide any metrics beyond just dropping a few big names. Similarly, the old intro discusses Georgetown's Catholic/Jesuit heritage without explaining what this signifies. As a member of the Georgetown community, the single most frequent question I hear from students is whether they have to be Catholic in order to attend or whether they will feel out of place at Georgetown. The new introduction does not just drop the fact of religious affiliation but also elucidates how this reflects on the student body, which is a pretty essential piece of information. Lastly, I think the new intro flows better, explaining the most relevant points in the order of importance. --Satt 2 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's getting better, but there are still some boosterism in there -- see Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism for example, like "especially renowned" and such. --AW (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Celebrates this rich religious heritage" is another example. It's good writing but not really Wiki style --AW (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Awiseman: Good point about "rich religious heritage". I wrote that because I did not want to come off as dismissing the religious affiliation. Perhaps we can say "Despite its religious heritage, the university has always been governed independently of the church."

As for "especially renowned", it's tougher to find a more neutral wording since the school is, in fact, renowned in that regard. Shall we say "the university is especially known for..." or "particularly known for..."? Any other suggestions are welcome.--Satt 2 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Satt 2: I like where you're going with it. However, to me, "despite its..." seems to imply a logical disjunction, which I don't think is what you intend to say. Perhaps "whilethe university actively maintains its religious heritage" would be more appropriate. Ergo Sum 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I don't mind that change, but we may be later called upon to define what we mean by "actively maintains"; some religious groups argue that the school doesn't do much to maintain its heritage at all! Perhaps it would be less confusing to just merge the two sentences like this: "The Jesuits have participated in the university's academic life, both as scholars and as administrators, since 1805; however, the university has always been governed independently of the church. At present, the majority of Georgetown students do not identify as Catholic."

That reads well to me. Ergo Sum 23:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Agree with @Ergo Sum: on the religious part. I think if you want to say "especially renowned" or something similar, you need to quote something that says that. Like if the US News rankings say specifically it's "especially renowned" or something. Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism has other suggestions for that. --AW (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910201515/http://alumni.georgetown.edu/schoolsprograms/schoolsprograms_37.html to http://alumni.georgetown.edu/schoolsprograms/schoolsprograms_37.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227101708/http://www.hoyasaxa.com:80/sports/hoia.htm to http://www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/hoia.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

		Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news
		8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions Inform your communities of the need for their support. Contribute in English or in your own language Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Georgetown 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://contentdm.lndlibrary.org/u?%2Fgtown%2C13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210185537/http://president.georgetown.edu/sections/biography/ to http://president.georgetown.edu/sections/biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706205332/http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2011/04/05/10-medical-schools-with-lowest-acceptance-rates to http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2011/04/05/10-medical-schools-with-lowest-acceptance-rates
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic%2BPreservation/Maps%2Band%2BInformation/Landmarks%2Band%2BDistricts/Inventory%2Bof%2BHistoric%2BSites/Alphabetical%2BEdition
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/hoia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030091522/http://multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2011.pdf to http://multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2011.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320112313/http://philodemic.georgetown.edu/ to http://philodemic.georgetown.edu/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 06:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report Rankings Boxes

I feel strongly that the U.S. News and World Report academic rankings are utter garbage. Its been well documented over many years that they are simply a sales gimmick of an otherwise failing American magazine relegated to the checkout aisle with the other tabloids. The "methodology" behind these is known to take into account such make-believe data points as "reputation" or "faculty dedication," which in turn let school lie and cheat to increase their rank. Basically these rankings are done with the outcome in mind. As such, I see positively no reason to feature their unscientific graduate and departmental numbers in two boxes under the Academics subsection, particularly when they're in addition to the already-existing box and a mention in the article's text. I feel that if a reader wants these numbers, they can just type in USNews.com, but these don't belong on Wikipedia.org. Anyone want to make the argument for why these are worth highlighting?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

While I won't comment on the reliability or worth of USNWR academic rankings, since that is a very large debate whose conclusion would have ramifications across WP, I do agree that the incorporation of three boxes featuring such rankings, two of which are in addition to the one standard USNWR template, is very much excessive and undue. The three boxes now dominate the section and, regardless of their placement, would be a distraction from the text of the article. Moreover, the information contained within the two non-template boxes are extraneous and generally unencyclopedic due to their extreme specificity. Lastly, MOS:IBX deprecates excessive use of infoboxes, whose function and style are effectively carried out by the two non-template boxes. For these reasons, I recommend removing the two non-template USNWR boxes. Ergo Sum 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ergo Sum, better said than I, apologies, I went a bit overboard with references there. Either way, I just pulled the boxes out again, though we can keep discussing if there are other opinions. I'm also never sure what to do here, the user that added them here did so to lots of other college articles, it may be worth a post on the Universities WikiProject talk page.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319200307/http://communications.georgetown.edu/facts/ to http://communications.georgetown.edu/facts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215224319/http://www.georgetown.edu/services.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/services.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927162841/http://uadmissions.georgetown.edu/firstyear/studentprofile to http://uadmissions.georgetown.edu/firstyear/studentprofile/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416114206/http://alumni.georgetown.edu/newsevents/newsevents_434.html to http://alumni.georgetown.edu/newsevents/newsevents_434.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501050017/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/national_university_rank.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/national_university_rank.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430095659/http://www.gulawweekly.org/news/2012/4/19/sandra-fluke-780-law-students-to-georgetown-comply-with-cont.html to http://www.gulawweekly.org/news/2012/4/19/sandra-fluke-780-law-students-to-georgetown-comply-with-cont.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118195947/http://www.thehoya.com/sigep-receives-national-charter-1.1881598 to http://www.thehoya.com/sigep-receives-national-charter-1.1881598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119081402/http://www.thehoya.com/weakly-greek-1.1881437 to http://www.thehoya.com/weakly-greek-1.1881437
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119022506/http://www.thehoya.com/parties-pageantry-mark-homecoming-1.1882295 to http://www.thehoya.com/parties-pageantry-mark-homecoming-1.1882295
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905144202/http://president.georgetown.edu/sections/initiatives/ to http://president.georgetown.edu/sections/initiatives/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716222822/http://www.9news.com/news/article/188150/613/Rams-hope-to-charge-past-Hoyas-in-Southwest-Regional-clash to http://www.9news.com/news/article/188150/613/Rams-hope-to-charge-past-Hoyas-in-Southwest-Regional-clash
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515003535/http://www.georgetown.edu/news/marshall-mitchell-scholars-2012.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/news/marshall-mitchell-scholars-2012.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601223630/http://www.georgetown.edu/news/truman-scholarship-winner-joanna-foote.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/news/truman-scholarship-winner-joanna-foote.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606232315/http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-17/ae/30411069_1_blue-valentine-hunger-smarm to http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-17/ae/30411069_1_blue-valentine-hunger-smarm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070321040441/http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=2938 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=2938
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318082624/http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=736 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=736
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207202302/http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=29138 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=29138
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011111652/http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=736 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/?DocumentID=736
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324030833/http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=13237 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=13237
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623012555/http://explore.georgetown.edu/sites/index.cfm?Action=Index&Mode=Research&Letter=A to http://explore.georgetown.edu/sites/index.cfm?Action=Index&Mode=Research&Letter=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715181913/http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=25425 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=25425
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613031520/http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/42565/ to http://explore.georgetown.edu/documents/42565/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412111404/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-09/sports/35721943_1_hoyas-ncaa-tournament-college-cup to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-09/sports/35721943_1_hoyas-ncaa-tournament-college-cup

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135825/http://dcist.com/2016/06/georgetown_sexual_assault_survey.php to http://dcist.com/2016/06/georgetown_sexual_assault_survey.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727072658/http://marquettetribune.org/2003/11/06/news/jesuit-colleges-lack-pro-choice-groups/ to http://marquettetribune.org/2003/11/06/news/jesuit-colleges-lack-pro-choice-groups

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Category problem

The first category shown at the top of the article is "Articles with text from the Artificial languages collective" shown in red, meaning that there is no such category. Please fix or delete.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Was caused by {{Lang}}. Ergo Sum 21:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with Catholic in the first sentence

This was discussed before, but two weeks ago the adjective "Catholic" found its way back into the first sentence of the article. The problem is, a Catholic school is operated by the Catholic Church. Georgetown is not. Georgetown is run by a board of directors. That's why we wrote that sentence saying "Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit-affiliated institution..." because is a more accurate way to state this fact. Even more accurate is to say that Georgetown is a member of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, which is what we do in the "Jesuit tradition" subsection. I do want to tread lightly here, as the idea of taking the "Catholic" out of Georgetown plays into this narrative that Georgetown is becoming less Catholic, but Wikipedia is about being accurate with the article's subject, I do feel "Catholic university" is less accurate than our alternatives.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Patrickneil: While I've seen you steward this page diligently over time, I believe you're mistaken here. A "Catholic university" (see Catholic higher education) is not necessarily one that is governed by some component of the Church hierarchy (although it can be). Perhaps you might be thinking of a pontifical university. According to Canon law 803 §3, one of the three ways in which a university can be considered a "Catholic school" is through recognition by the "competent ecclesiastical authority," i.e. in this case, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. Therefore, even though the university is neither owned nor governed by the Archdiocese of Washington, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Society of Jesus, universal Church, or any other ecclesiastical body, it is still a Catholic university. For this reason, I support including "Catholic" in the first sentence. Ergo Sum 02:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but this is no different than how any other Jesuit school (Boston College, Fordham, Holy Cross, etc.) lists their school in the first sentence. All of those schools have similar governance, so I guess was just looking to be consistent with their format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.85.196 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Georgetown's Catholic affiliation is adequately explained in the introduction and there is no need to label it "Catholic" in the first few words of the first sentence; it sounds parochial and does not accurately reflect the reality. The Catholic-affiliated schools that are often given as examples are very different from Georgetown in terms of mentality, student body, and identity. For instance, Notre Dame student body is about 80% Catholic, whereas Georgetown is less than half Catholic. Notre Dame has "47 chapels on campus, including one in every residence hall"; Georgetown has only one full-sized chapel (Dahlgren) and two small chapels (prayer rooms) in Copley Hall and the Hospital. No matter what some people wish or how some people may try to twist it, the fact is that most of us Hoyas are not devout followers of any religion and we are not here because of or in spite of Georgetown's religious affiliation. We are here because of the strength of our programs and schools, including many that are housed in buildings built by alumni of different faiths (i.e. business school). Most universities of Georgetown's age, size, and caliber were once founded by clergy, but they grew out of it and we don't call them "[Such and such religion] universities". If Fordham and Boston College want to rest their entire image and identity on being Catholic, perhaps it's because they are crappy schools and they have nothing else to talk about.--Sargentpeale (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

The university prominently identifies itself as Catholic right on its own homepage: "Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university." Additionally, the article's lead sentence when reviewed and promoted to Featured Article status included this adjective ("Georgetown University is a private, Roman Catholic, research university, located in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood."). So it appears that the subject strongly identifies with this part of its identity and the material was there when the article went through our most stringent review process. I acknowledge that consensus can change and that the review process for Featured Article status has changed quite a bit over time so we can certainly revisit this issue.

(During this discussion, I recommend avoiding slamming other colleges and universities; it's crass and it doesn't advance your argument. In fact, it hinders it a bit by allowing other editors to take your arguments less seriously.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not questioning that Georgetown is a Catholic university with a Catholic heritage. In fact, there is already a paragraph dedicated to this in the article introduction, which clearly describes the nature and extent of the school's religious affiliation and that of its student body. Adding the word "Catholic" in the very first sentence is superfluous and irrelevant, given everything else that is already said. Also, I believe you have taken Georgetown's self-identification a bit out of context--we should read the entire description on their website, which says:

Georgetown University is one of the world’s leading academic and research institutions, offering a unique educational experience that prepares the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world. Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. We provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. Students are challenged to engage in the world and become men and women in the service of others, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of the community.[1]

Looking at the school's own description, it is clear that being Catholic is A part of modern Georgetown's identity, not THE part. It does not necessitate the inclusion of word "Catholic" in the beginning of the very first line of an article, especially as the introduction and information box are already very clear about the school's affiliation. I am starting to suspect that the repeated insertion of "Catholic university" in the first sentence is entirely agenda-driven. --Sargentpeale (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

@Sargentpeale: We're trying to have a mature conversation here; please don't weigh in if your contribution is to give your personal evaluation of the situation (which, I might add, is woefully uninformed). Our assessment of Georgetown's Catholicity is irrelevant. We're only tasked with faithfully representing what reliable sources have to say about the matter, and it is clear that they regard Georgetown as a Catholic school; plain and simple. As for how Georgetown describes itself, that will necessarily be biased in favor of how the school wishes to promote itself. That is not how Wikipedia describes universities. E.g. Georgetown does not describe itself as a "private research university," but that is how reliable sources accurately describe it. Likewise, virtually every reliable and neutral source describes Georgetown as inter alia a "Catholic university," in line with other fundamental, defining characteristics. There is no reason that is not how it should described here.Ergo Sum 06:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My observations are very common sense. On the other hand, the repeated and inexplicable insertion of the word "Catholic", as this article as seen in the past few weeks, is immature and agenda-driven. Georgetown's religious background is clearly articulated in the introduction. Calling it a Catholic university or a Methodist university is meaningless and does nothing to actually describe the school or its religious affiliation any more than it is already described in one of the leading paragraphs.--Sargentpeale (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I understand the points you are making, but the intention of the first line of the wikipedia summary is to educate those about the basic facts related to the university. Georgetown is a catholic university, plain and simple. It's board structure and/or student body is irrelevant. Every other catholic college I have seen on here listed "private" and "catholic" among its descriptive phrases in summarizing the school. To me if anything, there is an agenda here to remove the catholic piece, which I don't understand as it is how the school describes itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.39.73 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sargentpeale: You're entitled to hold and share your opinion, even if you're going about in ways that are unproductive and unlikely to convince other editors. You're not entitled to edit war to enforce your opinion on others by continually reverting to your preferred version of the article. Stop it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The introduction already says that "Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit-affiliated institution of higher education in the United States"--enough said. There is absolutely no reason to also say that it is a "Catholic research university" in the very first sentence. Georgetown is a research university that happens to be catholic, it is not a catholic university that happens to do research. The religion is not central to Georgetown's existence and we should not mislead readers into thinking so.--Sargentpeale (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

I want to jump back in here to make one point. I don't think it's inaccurate to use the shorthand term "Catholic university" and that Georgetown's website isn't incorrect when they boast of being the "the nation’s oldest Catholic university." My contention is that leaving it out of the first sentence, and later saying "Catholic affiliated university" is the more accurate version, and on Wikipedia that matters. Georgetown's website isn't held to a WP:V standard. I feel that saying "Catholic university" is more likely to be misinterpreted as meaning "pontifical university." Also, in previous discussions, we brought up the issue of overloading adjectives, and that a "private Catholic research university" could be misinterpreted as a university that researches Catholicism; also that "private Catholic" was a redundant phrase given the lack of "public Catholic" schools (I think there might be some high schools in the Philippines, but if its ultimately run by the church, then its not state run, and vice-versa). Per MOS:FIRST, we should have a "concise definition" and avoid redundancy and overloading. There's plenty of space to get into the weeds about "competent ecclesiastical authorities," 1805, and the Jesuit order later in the article.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying makes perfect sense. Calling it a "Catholic research university" in the first sentence is a very simplistic opening line, one that is prone to misinterpretation by readers who are not very familiar with Georgetown, or the distinction between Catholic/Pontifical schools. The article should start with a generic opening line and elaborate on religious affiliation in the second paragraph, as it stands now.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

The opening line of any encyclopedia article is going to be oversimplistic; if that weren't the case then we wouldn't need an encyclopedia article for that topic! That's why we have (a) the rest of the article and (b) links to other related articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also I want to second @ElKevbo: in asking editors not to edit war over this. We can discuss this one and find a compromise. Would moving "Georgetown in the oldest Catholic..." up to the second or third sentence help, for example?

It looks like the article was actually stable for a long time until certain Daveg023 showed up and starting inserting Catholicism into everything without so much as an edit summary or explanation, and he is the one who keeps doing that. I'm not entirely clear on rules in these instances but as a reasonable person, I would think that when a user like Daveg023 is trying to change something that was previously established, he should be the one to ask around and at least provide reasons for given changes.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Also, I don't think it is necessary to move "Georgetown in the oldest Catholic..." up to the second sentence. It is a historical context that looks perfectly fine in the second paragraph. If our readers don't have the attention span to read a couple of sentences and reach the second paragraph, then they probably don't care enough to wonder whether Georgetown is Catholic or not.--Sargentpeale (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

Again, please don't edit war, if someone else is reverting, don't stoop to their level. But yes, it is worth reminding editors that the article has read "private research university" for about the last 7 years, based on discussions way back in 2011/2012. Without much fanfare, I reverted Catholic being inserted once back in 2015 because I do feel that changing a prior consensus about the top should be discussed first. That said, "content age" is not an argument one way or the other, so I do think a new consensus can be made about this wording. Did anyone want to present a solution to the issue I raised about the potential overloading of adjectives that adding "Catholic" creates, for example?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The rationale behind editing Catholic is in the opening line is that when a user does a simple Google search on the school, the first sentence is what shows up, with or without going to the Wikipedia page. The fact that we have agreed that being a Catholic school is an unquestioned characteristic of the school (and how all fellow Jesuit schools describe themselves), and how the school themselves identifies, I can only think that the fight to suppress this from the opening line is being driven by some ulterior motive. I just don't understand the passion from holding it out of the opening sentence, as regardless of how it has appeared for the prior years, the first sentence serves as much more important in google searches now then before, and not including that adjective seems consciously misleading to me. I assure am not operating on some hidden agenda here, but just looking to be consistent on how fellow institutions describe themselves, and see no reason why Georgetown should be different. --daveg023

Again, I don't wish to open a forum on whether or not this article's subject is quote-unquote Catholic either "inter alia", as an "unquestioned characteristic", or by their own definition; all we want to do is figure out how to best word a sentence to accurately reflect facts. There's no winning, and the only passion we should be having is about the English language and encyclopedic style. I really don't want to bite, but saying "we have agreed" is not the same is building a consensus with a compromise solution. While one could list similar Wikipedia university articles that don't put religious affiliation in the first sentence, what other articles do is something that shouldn't affect this one, nor should what a site like Google (or Baidu or Yandex for that matter) chooses to do. I understand you see it as misleading not to include Catholic, my contention above was that it was misleading to include it, when we can easily say "oldest Catholic affiliated" in the next sentence, if we go that way.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess my only counter to the "compromise" you are proposing is that the first sentence in Wikipedia is what shows up when anyone in the world does a Google search for the university, so the second sentence is just as buried as the fourth paragraph. That is my issue with that as a compromise, and I don't understand how would be misleading to have the adjective as part of the first sentence. I am not looking to make this a bigger issue than it already has become, but just don't really see the rationale or motivation to not include it from my perspective.

Daveg023, so you're basically admitting that the reason you keep inserting the word "Catholic" in the first sentence is to promote Georgetown as a Catholic school on Google?! That is not a legitimate reason to modify a perfectly good introduction. In fact, while Georgetown IS a Catholic/Jesuit school, it is questionable whether our Catholic/Jesuit affiliation is the school's most important attribute, so much so that it has to be the VERY FIRST thing that comes up in Google. As a Hoya, I personally think it is an insult to our centuries-old university to suggest that our antiquated, and by all standards rather tenuous religious affiliation is our most essential attribute, one that HAS to come before all else. Even the school's own description does not do that. Much of what you have written so far, including the trivia section, reads like a cheesy promotional material presented from a single perspective. Please stop promoting this oversimplified and misleading material about Georgetown.--Sargentpeale (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Satt 2

It's pretty clear in what you just wrote, your own biases come across. Regardless, I have neither the time nor energy to engage in such a debate with you on this, on something frankly that really doesn't matter. I appreciate your passion and stewardship, and wish you the best. --daveg023