Talk:Gonzaga University

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

Founding Discrepancy[edit]

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

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

Discrimination claims[edit]

The claims of discrimination against homosexuals are uncited, and thus, questionable.

Agreed! Patris Magnus 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observation[edit]

this site has been hacked by someone

I am not sure if its 26 or 24 consecutive games (or 20 something else) against other WCC teams, if someone could confirm or correct that, it would be helpful--Gusiman 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't Tom Foley attend Gonzaga Preparatory School not Gonzaga University?

Question about article[edit]

I think this whole article is ridiculous and false. It says that Gonzaga is ranked 4th in the west for Master's programs. Well, the citation is Gonzaga's own website! Gonzaga is a great basketball school, but if you look at the GPA and admittance criterion, it is no top-tier university.

It says that Gonzaga's law school is top in the Northwest. It's 170th in the country! It is tier 3 or 4 at best, and very few students pass the bar.

This is the first time I was disappointed in Wikipedia.

Adam Morrison is not a graduate of Gonzaga, Dan Dickau now plays for the Trailblazers, there are almost 900 employees now, and as someone mentioned the law school is only 3rd or 4th tier.

I am disappointed in you, please sign your comments next time. SpokaneWilly 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ah you are right, it is ridiculous and false. Gonzaga University is actually ranked 3rd in the west for universities WITH master programs. And the reported law school ranking was way off base, it's actually tied for 100 in the country. Both of these can be verified and cited using U.S. News and World Report's website. So what's the deal, why are you so hasty to rake on Gonzaga? After all, attending students do donate a notoriously large amount of time toward community rehabilitation projects... There's more to a college than rankings and admission criteria, I guarantee that college graduates improve markedly from their high school admission credentials. Norab 17:12, 10 June 2008 —Preceding

Bulldog[edit]

When I graduated in '02 the actual dog's name was Q. Spike is the name of the costume that is worn during games and other functions. Which are we talking about in this article? Patris Magnus 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Campus Politics" section[edit]

After reviewing the "Campus Politics" section, I strongly question the objectivity of this particular portion of the article. Aside from the statistics quoted from Facebook (which is not a political polling site, rather an on-line personality forum), none of the information in this section is cited - period. Additionally, there are a number of "political" topics regularly debated on campus, with sexual orientation being just one of those reguarly addressed by the administration and students in a public forum. This section should either be significantly cleaned up and expanded or deleted all-together. Thedjb 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. No citations or even hope of citation. I removed it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging "Gonzaga Bulletin"[edit]

During a recent AfD debate, there was a rough consensus that the article about the Gonzaga Bulletin be merged into this article. It would be greatly helpful if someone with knowledge about both subjects could perform this merge. Thanks. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged by Wooty on Feb. 13, 2007. It's hardly even a stub and needs expansion. I deleted the allegedly "famous past editors-in-chief" bit as it's totally irrelevant since neither were notable people.Thedjb 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More/Better Pictures[edit]

Gonzaga has a nice campus and has some landmarks on it such as the Admin building and the Church etc..take some pictures people

I tried to get one of the church, but it wouldn't all fit in the frame. :/ I'll see if I can't get a shot of the admin building near the roundabout. -Wooty Woot? contribs 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions - maybe you should just do it yourself rather than taking the time to write about it? If you're not in Spokane or can't take the photos yourself, maybe just don't worry about it? Also, please sign your posts. Thedjb 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Also, next time someones in Italy, take some pictures of that campus too.. - anon

Law school[edit]

Either the law school should get its own article or should be its own section in this article. This is consistent with other law schools in the U.S.

I am happy to make these changes if nobody else is interested, but would love an edit or two from alumni. Thanks. --Longman391 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has been created. Discussion is encouraged. Gonzaga University School of Law --Longman391 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics[edit]

This section is a mess. I'll clean it up if I can. Items that aren't in curriculum shouldn't be mentioned in Statistics for the first time.--Longman391 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I disagree that the section is a "mess." While it may need some clean up, it presents a basic set of statistics regarding enrollment and the type of programs offered. Thedjb 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Someone, with the IP address from Gonzaga, removed the post in the "controversy" section regarding an anti-homosexuality chant preformed at a Men's Basketball Game. An MSNBC article was cited? why was it removed? should it be put back up? here is the wording:Gonzaga's largest student group, The Kennel Club, made national headlines for yelling "Brokeback Mountain" at a basketball game on February 6, 2006. The chant was directed toward a player the Kennel Club thought was homosexual. [1]----63.224.223.240 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for Wikifying the word homosexual in the event some of us were unclear as to its meaning. I too think the section should be removed. While this event put Gonzaga in the news, a tidbit article on MSNBC's news ticker is hardly notable when looking at the 120 year history of the university. Wikipedia is not a news site or blog and the content of its articles shouldn't be treated as such. My vote is keep the info out.Thedjb 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article could seriously use some citations. It makes a lot of claims that it cannot back up, and I will add requests for those in question.--DerRichter (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently this article has had a lot of embedded citations by user 67.185.225.23. These are helpful but to have real citations, this might be helpful: <ref name= >{{cite web|url= |title= |accessdate= |accessyear= |author= |date= |publisher= }}</ref> . Also see citation templates and citation quick reference. --DerRichter (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV[edit]

I am also tagging this article with: {{pov}} because of statements such as that about the "dominance" of the cross country team. If the team really is dominant, one may show this by listing, with proper citations, the team accomplishments. That will imply dominance and refute the pov dispute. Thanks--DerRichter (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant the ROTC challenge thing, not the cross country team. My bad.--DerRichter (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GonzagaBulldogs.GIF[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good history section could be developed with these links[edit]

It would be nice if this article had a history section. I think a real nice one could be developed using the following sources, the Gonzaga website and HistoryLink (a Washington state online encylopedia):

I especially recommend the lengthy HistoryLink article, HistoryLink is a great reference -used it a lot doing the Spokane history section. I may try to do the history section someday when I have enough time and in the right mood. Anon134 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this article desperately needs a history section. It's entirely too promotional in nature and someone associated with the institution has clearly had a heavy hand in editing this article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: User Gonzaga University created[edit]

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

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

Recent edits[edit]

Jevoussaluemarie, can you explain why you are disputing that Gonzaga is Roman Catholic? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis Bratland, my explanation was that on three key signature pages where one would expect an identity statement of a Catholic nature (home || about/what-sets-us-apart/ || about/at-a-glance) there is none. There is no indication from Gonzaga's website that it is Roman Catholic.
Also, according to Catholic higher education a "Catholic university" is a university that is "privately run by the Catholic Church". By definition in ecclesiastical law, a Catholic university is "under control of the competent ecclesiastical authority or of a public ecclesiastical juridical person, or one which in a written document is acknowledged as Catholic by the ecclesiastical authority" as stated in (Catholic higher education). But there is no indication that Gonzaga has those real ties. Jevoussaluemarie (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Jesuit Order is an ecclesiastical order, and it controls Gonzaga. Did you look at the mission statement page? Or the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities? We would be most interested in third party, mainstream references, such as US News. Or the US Department of Ed, which lists Gonzaga as a theological school, not merely a school where a lot of Catholics are enrolled. This is a widely known and obvious fact. We don't normally have to cite the fact that the sky is blue in articles, unless there is a reason to make a big deal out of it. I've never heard of this fact being in serious dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those pages that you linked to, which are not the primary pages of Gonzaga's site, do not express that it is "Roman Catholic." In its mission statement, Gonzaga states it has a "Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic heritage and identity". But there is no indication of this Catholic identity anywhere else. This page makes its "Catholic" identity equivalent to its humanistic identity. Why not call it a "humanistic university"?
Although Gonzaga University is affiliated with the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, affiliations with an accrediting agency do not constitute an identity with it, let alone with the Catholic Church. The US Department of Ed no longer lists Gonzaga University as a Theological School . The department's "current action" states, "Loss of Accreditation or Preaccreditation: Voluntary Withdrawal", as of 01/30/2008. Also, Roman Catholic Canon Law [2] states that any Catholic University must have "at least a chair of theology" (Canon §811), but Gonzaga has no such chair in Theology. So it is not--according to Canon Law--a Catholic University. Jevoussaluemarie (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The university is a Jesuit institution which makes it Catholic. ElKevbo (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abusive priests section -> missing History section[edit]

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

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP to username[edit]

I have edited this article heavily in the past as an IP. For many reasons, I have decided to register for a username and will only be using this username in the future. Thanks. RumbleChan86 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gonzaga_University&oldid=1079026931"