| Revision as of 11:56, 11 June 2007 edit208.40.192.194 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:56, 11 June 2007 edit undo208.40.192.194 (talk) →RatingNext edit → | ||
| Line 351: | Line 351: | ||
| We just got a B rating for this article! Which is excellent! More work to do and we'll have a featured article! ] 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | We just got a B rating for this article! Which is excellent! More work to do and we'll have a featured article! ] 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Your an idiot. | |||
Revision as of 11:56, 11 June 2007
What a joke. This is an absurd version of the article for[REDACTED] to use. I have lost all faith in this site.
 | New York (state) B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | New York City B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Higher education B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
POV tag
Should be up until this weird dispute is resolved. Any article with multiple criticisms inserted in bold, odd claims of the school being notable for the "lack of" various programs, and so on, should be tagged until the issue is resolved. Keeping things to the talk page is no good - the plain visual evidence of a POV dispute, without a warning tag, makes the article (and wikipedia) look kinda ridiculous. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, the tag wasn't up because the normal/acceptable version had been reverted to the controversial one. Now, the normal article is up, and the tag thus no longer needed. Huh. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous
- True, but the relevance, when another user challenges it, needs to be established, and the facts need to be inserted into the article properly. Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Response to "why did you revert my grammar fixes? also, I think it was agreed upon that these do not need to be bold, and are placed in inappropriate places.)" then "no such agreement made. go to discussion page. ". As you can see in the moderator Maru's statement above, "Regardless of what I may or may not think of the merits of your facts, they were not inserted properly." ToadX 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
My thought about the edits made on this page:
"On campus shooting, There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."
There is no need for this statement in the first paragraph of this article. The first paragraph gives a general summary of the university itself. Also, this statement was already placed in the demographics portion of the article. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.
"There has been several claims of racism and prejudice on campus. The President of the school had made comments on the "culture" of the school that needed to be changed."
This statement is incorrect and misleading. The only thing the article states is that some students felt the president of the university "made insensitive remarks by putting the blame on the basketball program’s culture" which some believed to be racist since the basketball players were all black. The president of the university later "backtracked and said his statements were misconstrued. “I did not mean it in terms of ethnicity or religion..." He also met with numerous students to discuss the controversy. There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.
"During the 2004 basketball season, the team was plagued by allegations of misconduct, including a charge of gang rape against 3 players. Legal charges were dropped, and all 3 of the players were dismissed from the school and removed from the team."
This information is incorrect. The players were not dismissed from the university. There were never any legal charges of gang rape. The only thing that happened was that a woman threatened to claim rape unless the players paid her $1000. The players had proof of this extortion from video and audio taken with a digital camera which was brought to the police. The woman was then charged with "criminal attempt at theft by extortion." There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.
"They were dismissed, Abe Keita (sp) for example. He went to attend a school in CT for this reason. I was at the school when this happened and am friends with a friend of his. -Ken, SJU 2005 grad"
"Prospective athletes should be made aware of the on campus shooting of football player who was consequently left paralyzed. This was during the second year of the New Dorm's on campus on the Dormitory parking lot" placed in "Campus Renovations"
I do not think this statement is appropriate. There is no reason to address prospective athletes. This does not really have anything to do with the new campus dorms. Also, a campus shooting is obviously not a campus renovation. This is only an unfortunate event that happened to a St. John's student. This is an article about the university. Do we need to list what happens to every student? There is also no reason for this to be put in bold.
I think all of these statements are inappropriate for this article. This is an article about St. John's University. Would you ever imagine finding these statements in another encyclopedia? These are only minor events that happened to St. John's students. Should we list all of the events that happen to every student that goes to St. John's in this article? How about a summary of every sports game that St. John's plays? I think all of these statements should be removed from this article. However, since there seems to be some controversy with removing them, I have only rephrased them so they contain correct information. There is also no need for these statements to be bold. See the history of edits on this article made on December 24th around 16:12-16:30.
--ToadX
controversial edits
I think that the information is necessary. They occurred and even if you don't think that a student getting shot on campus is important or female students almost being raped there are many parents who do http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2005/12/23/News/Alleged.Rapist.Accepts.Plea.Bargain-1998219.shtml . Prospective athletes as well as students should be aware of the dangers that do exist at the school. St John's is known more for it's athletics more than it's education.
Grady Renalds was dismissed from the university. A deal was made where Elijah Ingram was removed from the university (via withdrawal), and Abe Keita was suspended for the season. He later confessed to receiving funding from the school which was against NCAA regulations. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html
I havent even mentioned the Lacrosse team at St John's university and their rape situation.
http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/athletes.html
The president of the school made racial remarks and later retracted them. This though doesn't take away from the fact that he said it. Like if someone says "i hate niggers" and then retracts his statement. It doesn't take away from the fact that he stated it. There have been many claims of blatent racism on the university campus, and the presidents comments is just another one.
You must understand that this is verified information and you must give it a fair hearing. Bobbydoop 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because an event may have occurred does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. There are many campus shootings that happen on campuses all over the world. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find where they list them? Likewise, how many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that list students that have been dismissed from the university or suspended? Should we list all students that get dismissed from a university or suspended? St. John's being known better for athletics than education is your POV. I do not think this is true. Their sports teams aren't even doing that well.
The president of the university never retracted his statement. He only stated that he was misunderstood and his statements may have been misinterpreted. There are not many claims of blatant racism on the university campus. This is also your POV. I do not think this is true. I'm sure there are many other universities that have more racism on them. How many other encyclopedia articles about universities can you find that say something like this?
ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not concerned about the racism on other campus' . I'm concerned about St. John's and the disturbing racial atmosphere that exists there. It was perpetuated by the President as well. There are a few campus shootings, but St. John's has one that was recent as well as a few rapes. The public should be made aware. 24.239.149.9 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As a recent graduate of St. John's I can personally attest to many of the issues at hand. First, St. John's is one of the most diverse universities in the country. Having come from Texas, I can assure you that I have good sense of what a "racist" environment consists of, and St. John's is far from it. It is one of the most culturally, racially, religiously, and ideologically diverse institutions I have ever encountered, and as a result, there is a harmony and beauty to the way all these groups interact and seek to understand one another. Additionally, just like any urban university, there is a risk of external criminal activity around St. John's. However, this is not something unique to the university, as NYU, Columbia, Fordham, or CUNY are subject to the same risks. Scandels, if major, may be worth noting, if presented in a tactful and informative manner, and if based on factual reporting. For instance, it my not be unwise to make brief and tactful mention of the basketball scandel a few years back, but in doing so, it should also note the universities self imposed penalties and recent turn around in the program with the hiring of Norm Roberts. Thirdly, St. John's University, has a duty to promote its level of academics, as does every other academic institution. St. John's has many noteworthy programs, and continues to add faculty, facilities and programs to its already extensive network of resources and opprotunities. I think it should simply be remembered that Misplaced Pages is a source for information, and not a source for propoganda or dispute. Claims, whether for or against St. John's, should be measured against their importance to the objectives of Misplaced Pages. -TiconderogaCCB TiconderogaCCB 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does campus shootings belong under campus renovations? ToadX 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sock puppeting
The poster of the above is also the same person as the other IP and username, he obviously just registered that account now. - posted by ToadX
- Ironic, coming from soneone using an IP to get around ablock right now....that is also sockpuppetry and it's been reported. --Gator (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm not editing the article. I only want to discuss this issue. I am also not trying to hide my identity like the user above. I have clearly stated that I was ToadX using a different address to post since my other one was blocked. I do not feel this falls under the definition of sock puppet since I am not trying to pose as another user. --ToadX
- He's correct there, Gator. Sock puppets are only banned when they are used maliciously or to increase a user's influence. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
please take all talks here Bobbydoop 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Stop reverting it back to your version of the article. While we discuss it, the article should be kept as normal without your added statements since that additional material is the disputed material. ToadX 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also, why do you keep reverting my grammar fixes? I fixed some grammar errors such as St. johns to St. John's, and you reverted them just to get your version of the article back. I don't think anyone would object to these grammar fixes. It's obvious you don't really care about this article. ToadX 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This was only after you deleted major portions of the article for no reason. Bobbydoop 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did not delete major portions of the article for no reason. The administrator Maru even said that the information was "not inserted properly" and he/she had removed it before. ToadX 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
.
So if I put a sentance such as "Prospective residents of the United States should be made aware of this president's actions which have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place in George Bush's article (such as "2004 Campaign"), put it in bold and put a link under it, and did similarly for hundreds of other articles, there is no problem with that? I would never be blocked, and we would need to discuss this material every time I posted something like that? --posted by toadx
- Do you think there would be a problem if you inserted the fact that GWB's Iraq war has led to the death of >1000 Americans, and that political opponents use this fact in their political attacks and criticism into a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
i dont know how to contribute to the talk page, but i'm trying.
i'm learning how to make contributions. I believe that people should be made aware of the good as well as the bad. I posted links that are very important to many groups, especially minorities. I was also trying to learn how to give the proper citation, i didn't know, but am trying so that's why i placed a direct link. If someone keeps taking it off, what is anyone going to learn?
- That is a poor excuse. First of all, you've edited hundreds of articles before (see posts from his IP). Second of all, you should read the policies and guidelines for editing. Disregarding the validity of the statements you have added, they are obviously violating formatting guidelines / style guidelines as well as placement guidelines. ToadX 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ToadX is right, but why waste your breath on this user/loser. He's a kid screwing around and now the administrator has locked him out. OG from LA
The contributions for St johns from Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are the same person. 24.239.149.9 was before registration, and OGstrokes is after registration.
can contributions be made yet? i don't anything is getting done. 24.239.149.9 11:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
How can something be famous for a lack of a program?
This same user has been attacking schools, fraternities, and bus companies at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, St. Johns, and elsewhere. I'm at my wits end. Tfine80 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is horrible. I wish an admin would step in and remove these ridiculous edits and prevent more edits of this type from happening. ToadX 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That would take away from necessay contributions to the website. Potential applicants should be made aware if a school has a program or doesn't have one.
How about an insert stating that St. John's doesn't have any an Engineering program, Medical Program, and football team.
Bobbydoop 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's a lot of things this school does not have. They (probably) don't have a marine biology major. Should we put that? They (probably) do not have a basket weaving class. Should we put that? Should we list everything they don't have? Also, they do have software engineering programs, and MANY schools do not have medical programs or Division I NCAA football teams. Do we need to list this on every school that does not have them? How many other articles about universities can you find that specifically state they do not have these? ToadX 20:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Computer Science and software engineering are very different. Engineering is a major program. Why don't we agree on putting a section that will allow for this or an advisory warning. You aren't protesting the validity of this information. You simply don't like what is being stated. With the civil right's movements many minorities would be interested in knowing the racial atmosphere that exists at the school. Wouldn't you agree? Bobbydoop 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Software engineering is part of computer science. At almost any university, if someone wanted to study software engineering, they would enroll in a computer science program. Engineering is usually split up into many different subdivisions such as mechanical engineering, software engineering, bioengineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, etc...
- However, you really haven't addressed my reasons for excluding information like this from the article. Ignoring whether the statements are true or not, I am saying that even if they are true, statements like that do not belong in any encyclopedia article about a university. There are many other universities that are more diverse than this one that also don't have those programs. Why don't we just list all the programs that this university does not have? The list would be longer than the rest of the article. Adding information about what programs they don't have is ridiculous. Also, the school is not well "known lack of medical programs".
- How about this? Since this school doesn't have a medical program, we should write that "St. John's University does not have a medical program." in the medical article. Just because something is true, does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Like I said before, can you find other encyclopedia articles about universities that state something like this?
Computer science can have software engineering, but that isn't guaranteed. The school is known to not have a medical program. Far away applicants should be made to know this. 24.239.149.9 10:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Universities are comprised of many different programs. While a few institutions are able to offer the maximum array of courses and majors, this is not typically the case. St. John's does not have an engineering program, but neither does Fordham, yet no one would dispute the value of Fordhams academics. Further, even though St. John's lacks an engineering program, it has programs that most universities do not, namely, Pharmacy, Asian Studies, and Actuarial Science. Therefore, a lack of a program is not worth mentioning, and your suggestion that it is a negative reflection of the university is absurd. Would you also make the claim that Princeton has poor academics because it lacks a law school, or that Columbia has poor academics because it lacks a program in Vet Science? Think about it. - TiconderogaCCB
Constructive editing
When making updates to the article, please take care to incorporate changes made by other users rather than simply inserting a preferred version you may have saved locally. My edits to restore deleted information, correct links, make the text more compliant with WP:STYLE, and categorize the article appropriate have been removed several times. I have no particularly strong knowledge or opinion of the assertions made, but will freely observe that both the version of my text incorporating critical text and the version omitting it have zealously overwritten. The recent pattern of editing may result in this article being locked by an administrator. -choster 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) That's fine. OG from LA
- The main editor who is making these constant reversions is a vandal using an AOL account. If tempers flare, it is from exhaustion with dealing with him. I'm sure the other editors are willing to cooperate with you. Tfine80 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Recent edit on 9-2-06 by TiconderogCCB was to update enrollment information and make a small alteration to the opening paragraph.
As an employee of the university, I would not characterize St. John's as an urban campus. The look and feel of the campus is not much like other NY City campuses. The amount of green space is atypical of NY City campuses. It seems more suburban in appearance. Jamesabenson 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
While the the actual campus environment may not seem urban, its location cannot be characterized in any other way. You cannot get more "urban" than Queens, NY. The term suburban would better apply to school such as Hofstra or LIU-Post Oak. I think we could agree that the the setting of St. John's is vastly different from either of these two schools. Though I see your point regarding the campus atmosphere, I think the term is being used to describe its location. - TiconderogaCCB 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Centers and Institutes
From the article on Oct 2, 2006: "St. John's University also houses several research centers and institutes. Among them are the Center for Psychological Services and Clinical Studies, the Speech and Hearing Center, the Committee on Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the Vincentian Center for Church and Society, and the Institute for Asian Studies."
A more complete list of centers and institutes would also include the following: Reading and Writing Education Center | Center for Community Services | Center for Professional Education | Center for Teaching and Learning | Institute for Biotechnology | Institute for Writing Studies | Italian Cultural Center
17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Largest Catholic University?
DePaul University already claims to be the largest catholic University with 24.000 students, so may be St. John's is the second largest? 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Language altered to "one of the largest" - TiconderogaCCB
Academic Boosterism
Seems to plague this article. As per wiki policy it will be removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems
Least Happy Students
St john's university is ranked #6 by the princeton review for least happy students. "Least Happy Students" that lists Stony Brook as #4. http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=6&topicID=44
Editing User talk:149.68.148.185 In reponse to your message of
"User talk:66.171.23.248
Hi, thank you very, very much. Please know that I do not mean to, and I believe I am not, violating Misplaced Pages policy, which emphasizes contributions and updates with respect for all who contribute. The reason for the changes I've made really reflect only a desire to post content that I hope will provide a full picture of the University. For example, it is generally well known that St. John's offers not only the liberal arts, business, and pharmacy, but also education (its School of Education will celebrate its 100th Anniversary this year) and computer technology programs.
Viewing the content for other universities, the inclusion of a negative statement ("Least Happy Students") high up in this article does seem quite different from the treatment other universities receive. The item in question is actually a dubious item collected from student surveys that often are not updated for several years. (I was able to confirm this with an official at Princeton Review.) Therefore, it seems better to either omit it altogether or to provide an objective but not negative comment.
I deeply appreciate the wonderful, comprehensive work that the other contributors are doing with this article -- and indeed with all articles. I mean only to contribute in an objective way that does add something, that is, a fuller look at the University in question.
Please let me know what you think of this, as I do feel compelled to edit this once again.
Thank you.
````newuser"
The Princeton Review ranking of st. john's university was even quoted in the university student newspaper. http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2006/11/08/News/Sju-Ranked.In.Top.361.By.Princeton.Review-2446723.shtml . Please review academic boosterism and the use of terms like "presitigious" or including strong academic institutions like U of Penn or NYU which are top tier schools. Your ip address is based from St. John'sUniversity and thus will be taken into account. Objective is including 10 ten wired as well as least happy students. A full look at the university includes the good and the bad. thanks.
66.171.23.248 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved this information re the "Least Happy Students" out of the lead - where it is a bit of a smack in the face and possibly violates NPOV by being there - down to the "Scandals" section, where it seems more appropriate. Moreschi 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In following the[REDACTED] guidleline concerning academic boosting , removal of the words like excellence and prominence have been a problem. Although statements like "least happy students" may appear to be a slap in the face, it is something that the school has actually been ranked in. There are numerous guides including the US News and World Report and the Princeton review being the biggest ones rate and rank accoding to numerous subjective guidelines. Even the school newspaper ranks speaks about St. John's rankings in the newspaper and praises it's inclusion. . The good and the bad gives a fair perspective. Simply stating what is good white washes history and is unencyclopedic. It's like Duke blanking out the lacrosse rape scandal, or UNLV not speaking about the it's NCAA violations. . St. John's university along with stony brook are notable to have included the least happy students.. There has been no removal of the top 10 wireless ranking that St. John' has been given, so there isn't any NPOV violations. Scandals isn't an appropriate place for the st. john's ranking of least happy students. Most likely a rankings portion is needed. Which is what i'll create. thanks . 66.171.23.248 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Continued Bias in St. John's article
I want to very sincerely appeal to anyone at Misplaced Pages who can help with a continuing series of blatantly hostile -- in fact, unprecedentedly biased -- entries in the article about St. John's University (NY).
I have followed the discussions, and it seems that someone has continued to prominently place negative -- and inaccurate -- information about St. John's University high up in the article. If Misplaced Pages's editors and administrators read the profile articles of other U.S. universities and colleges, you will find that absolutely none has any negative information high up in the article, if at all.
Apparently, someone added a sentence about St. John's being ranked by Princeton Review as having the "Least Happy Students." It was removed, and the editor who placed it there complained. In an effort to appear unbiased, a wierd "Rankings" section was created that includes two blatantly negative items with one positive one.
In fact, if you follow the source, you'll see that Princeton Review did NOT have a ranking of "Least Happy Students" -- this was a section in a larger ranking of Best Colleges. (St. John's apparently is in the ranking of 361 Best Colleges. Within this ranking, Princeton Review looked at other criteria. Therefore, the new item about "Least Happy Students" is pulled entirely out of context without any explanation. Further, you will not find this approach in any other university article on Misplaced Pages.
The person responsible claims that the "Least Happy Student" item is valid because it was in the University's student newspaper; yet there, too, it was part of a larger piece. The new "Rankings" section can only be neutral if it records the fact that the original Princeton Review ranking was actually about something else entirely.
I plan to edit this, but I need to ask Misplaced Pages to please address this very bizarre situation.
Thank you,
Ryan Moskowitz 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan M.
ryan, did you go to st. john's? because it seems like you didn't read. if you go to the princeton review link you'll see a numerical ranking. rankings are placed high in a number of articles including Vassar http://en.wikipedia.org/Vassar_College . the talk section is for a reason. if you like you can simply put up a review for the st. john's article.
68.175.30.133 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=121775219
About St. John's University
Thank you for your help. I actually would have logged in for this, but my username, etc., is on my home computer (foolish of me, I know) so I am doing this merely from my IP address.
For the past several days, I have made minor edits to the article on St. John's University (NY) to add information I feel provides a fuller, more accurate, though I hope still objective view of the University. Specifically, the first paragraph mentions only a few of the programs the University offers -- liberal arts, business, pharmacy, law -- while the University is also well-known for its education and computer technology programs. I began several days ago editing this to include the info. However, everytime I did this, within a day the paragraph reverted to what it was.
Then, this morning, in the first paragraph, not only were my edits deleted but a new -- and I feel, unprecedented -- statement was added, wholly unlike the first paragraphs of other university articles on Misplaced Pages: a statement saying that St. John's is cited in Princeton Review's "Least Happy Students." Citing this high up in an article, with no countering view or information, seems strange at best, biased at worst. There is no similar information similarly placed in any other University article I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Also, it so happens that the actual citation refers to an often debated survey Princeton Review distributes every few years; while true, it is not viewed as remotely fair by most universities. When I changed this, I replaced the overtly negative statement with a positive one about St. John's being on a national ranking for technology excellence.
I am writing because I really am tempted to change this back to my edits, though without the "positive" statement. I almost feel that the other editor included the negative statement as a kind of punishment. (You'll note that the same editor added a prominent "recent news" section about a financial aid controversy, not included in articles about other universities also involved.) Please provide some guidance with this, because the changes to my admittedly new edits do seem a bit overbearing, as if one person owns this article, and even negative, as if punitive.
Thank you.
-- moskow11@optonline.net
- Both editors involved seem to be talking to each other civilly on their talk pages: I would encourage them to keep doing that. The offending statement is still in the article, but I've moved it out of the lead, where it was a bit of a slap in the face, and have added some cleanup tags, and have left a comment on the talk to that effect. I think another Assistor - is that a word? - needs to have a look at this, as The Princeton Review does not seem to be an entirely unreliable source. Having said that, the manner in which it is being cited probably violates the external link guideline, as their website requires registration. Cheers, Moreschi 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A link to a St. John's school article speaks about the ranking and the 2007 princeton review book can be found at any book store. 68.175.30.133 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please find where it states top 100 in the nation..
According to U.S. News & World Report, St. John's School of Education is among the top 100 graduate education programs in the U.S. 68.175.30.133 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A Frightening Situation
I will need to ask for Arbitration concerning the St. John's article. I received a "talk" request from an editor who seems to be responsible for exceedingly negative changes to the St. John's University article -- a clear threat to any organization's posting if it's allowed to continue.
I copied his comments, which I'll paste here -- as you'll see, they seem to be extremely angry and biased against the University, claiming that the article had been "pasted" from brochures. The editor in question actually seems unable to realize that creating a prominent "scandal" section, to which he's added several items today, is itself a violation of neutrality. For example, in recent months, crimes have occurred at a number of Universities, and terrible things like the drinking-related death of a student at Rider. Yet no other university in Misplaced Pages seems plagued by someone obsessed with the notion of creating a blatantly bad image. Please look at the following item I've pasted from my talk section. (The editor's name seems to be . . . UTC?):
please use talk section.
i want neutral opinions given concerning various schools not a whitewash which is what i've seen in numerous places. this article for a while was a copy and paste out of st john's pamphlets. past that i still can't locate where you are talking about with the top 100 . 68.175.30.133 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there someone out there who has appointed himself or herself the sole guardian of the St. John's article. If so, I may need to ask arbitration to take the piece down. Again, compare the current St. John's article -- with negative rankings and scandals -- to other University articles, like NYU, Fordham, etc. Everytime I tried to add the many positive items about St. John's -- its programs, students, positive press, etc. -- this editor seems to have immediately deleted the info.
Is there anyone at Misplaced Pages who is willing to assume responsibility for curtailing this negative force?
Ryan Moskowitz 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Ryan
you can simply challenge the sources that the information came from. if the information is reliable than request arbitration. 66.171.23.248 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
here are two universities with scandals sections
http://en.wikipedia.org/Bob_Jones_University#Controversies
http://en.wikipedia.org/Duke_lacrosse 66.171.23.248 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In regards the comment from the scandals section that follows in brackets: .], while initial reports were that Prof. Shoaf was attacked in a University Parking lot, later investigations by the NY Police Dept. confirmed that the attack occurred elsewhere.
Jamesabenson 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)James Benson, an employee of SJU
there is a clear bias gong on on this article when it is important to note the series of scandals that have occurred at the university over the years. It is historically important to list these details which are regularly removed from posting whenever mentioned. they are not unfactual information sources have been sited from serveral locations and yet the information is continueally deleted each time. this is blatant misrepresentation on the schools credibility that is represented in the article. this website is a sham!!!!
Those choosing to regularly degrade Misplaced Pages and this article by reverting to biased and insulting articles are asked to cease such action. The "neutral" article that is reverted to demonstrates a fair balance of opinion and should be the building block for the article. Those who wish to list scandals and rankings at the top of the article are clearly trying to discredit the school, instead of provide a forum for information. Rankings and scandals are included in the article and are listed in an appropriate section. I sincerely urge everyone to take time to properly contribute to the article and stop childish games. Until neutrality can be maintained the "neutral" article will continue to override slanderous edits.19:36, 2 May 2007 208.40.192.194 (Talk) (37,661 bytes)
i posted the orginal scandals section in the page. i posted it because it listed important information about the school. listing least happy students at the top of the page along with bolding other items is a total bias. listing scandals that happend is not. that is part of the history of the school. also moving the scandals section higher then i had placed is bias too. it was listed lower on the page as part of extended information involved with SJU. it seems that the bias of favoring the school has been revered with a bias of hating the school. 19:15, 9 May 2007 205.166.218.39 (Talk)
I have edited this page back to the "neutral version" several times. The "neutral version" lists scandels and rankings as their own section toward the bottom of the article, as is typical with other college articles. I agree with the above. Listing scandels and negative rankings next to the summary is unnecessary and bias. These issues should be part of the article, but in an appropriate section. Continue to revert back to the "neutral version" until the slanderous editors cease their childish games. - Ticonderoga
MAY/JUNE 2007
academic boosterism seems to plague this article. lets follow[REDACTED] policy http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism DMVGuy 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS THE EDITS TO SJU LIKE ADULTS? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ARTICLE THAT I REVERT TOO, AND YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS LESS BIAS THAN YOUR VERSION OF THE ARTICLE. I HAVE TRIED TO TAKE THIS TO THE DISCUSSION PAGE BUT YOU HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED. You have refered to the wiki article on "academic boosterism". If you read this article, you would notice a reference to the inappropriate use of rankings to promote the university. It would follow then that using rankings, particularly a subjective ranking at the top of the article, to discredit the university, would be equally inappropriate. This has become absurd. Can we PLEASE use the article I have reverted to as the building block for the SJU article? It has the same information, but more appropriately placed. --TiconderogaCCB 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Academic boosterism is not an issue with this article. Issues relative to rankings, scandels, etc, are given proper attention, but are more appropriately placed than the version you reverted to. Please do not revert back to the version that puts "rankings" as the second issue addressed. If you want to discuss changes, do so on this page BEFORE reverting to a version of the article that is intent of slander. 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
are you aware of the meaning of the word slander? please come back with a definition. if something written is truthful it is not slander. rankings according to[REDACTED] avoid academic boosterism is something that they desire. DMVGuy 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article that lists scandels and rankings has deemed unconstructive and slanderous by this discussion page. The "Neutral Version" should be the building block for the article. The slanderous article that often reverted too, orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Misplaced Pages articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs)
-- what makes one version more neutral than another? is their a set order as to where informatino is supposed to be set according to wikipedia? slander is a civil charge. is there any information there that isn't true? 64.131.205.111 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
--Then I will use term malicious instead of slanderous. There is not set order that items should be listed, but the order should be gauged against the purpose of the article. What you are doing is similar to stating MLK was adulterous before mentioning he was an incredible civil rights leader. In my version of the article, all your facts are being preserved, but in a more appropriate manner. For the sake of civility, could we please quite this back and forth and just use the "neutral version" as the building block to the St. John's article? - Ticonderoga (Neutral Version advocate)
Civility or downplaying things that go on and went on in the University? The fact remains that the information is true. Order is subjective. 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It is neither slanderous nor malicious. It is informative. That is the purpose. Your version is not neutral but pro university. use one IP address, this is ridiculous. I'm going to stop replying if you don't stay consistent. 64.131.205.111 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
--The version I use does not favor the university. If I was intending to distort the truth, I would omit the information entirely. I think it is appropriate to list it, however, it is even more appropriate to place it in a particular section. With negative information listed at the very beginning of the article, the entire article becomes discredited by first time viewers, as a bias is automatically noted. However, with the information listed further down the article, more credit is given to its contents as it appears appropriately placed. I did graduate from St. John's, but I also recognize the need to be upfront and honest about all issues surrounding the university, which is why I do not delete the information. The university has had issues in the past, and those should be made evident to the reader. However, those issues do not define the university, but rather, are associated with it. Things which define the university should be listed first, (academics, founding, demographics, etc), and things associated with it (athletics, alumni, scandels, rankings, etc) should be listed further down the article. I would make the same edit if someone was trying to list the basketball history of SJU before listing its academic profile and basic demographics. I appreciate that a new edit has not yet been made, and I would very much like to see this issue resolved. I do not want to be confrontational. - Ticonderoga (P.S. I travel often, and thus the multiple IP addresses) 5/23/2007 15:00
Rating
We just got a B rating for this article! Which is excellent! More work to do and we'll have a featured article! YoSoyGuapo 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your an idiot.
Categories: