Talk:George Mason University/Archive 1

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

Student Government

I removed the section on Student Government as it dealt mainly with interaction regarding one specific student. If Student Government sections are common to University articles on Wikipedia, I propose limiting the section in this article strictly to the structure of student government as a compromise. Hiberniantears 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Largest university?

The opening segment states that GMU is the largest public university in the Commonwealth of Virginia with an enrollment of over 29,000; however, the Virginia Commonwealth University article states that it is the largest with an enrollment of over 31,000. Could somebody please look into this? Thanks. Daniel 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the Collegeboard.com profiles for GMU and VCU, which states the enrollment of the two schools as 28,242 an 25,961, respectively. Consulting the two schools' websites, GMU stated 29,728, while I could only find "more than 29,000" students for VCU. So, I think that unless someone digs up the hard numbers for VCU (which I'm too lazy to do), the article should stay as it is.Preston 08:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

GMU enrollment figures can be found here [1]. This is a true total, including graduates and the law school. A comparable enrollment total for VCU can be found in this pdf file [2], via this webpage [3]. Based on these sources, the totals come to:
  • GMU has 29,728 for 2005-2006
  • VCU has 29,349 for 2005-2006
GMU is larger by a handful. It could easily change. -- Vector4F 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Impressive work. Thanks for the information. 129.174.180.4 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Need to consolidate athletics info

It's at the top of the article and in the article below under the "Athletics" header. I'm too tired to work on this right now, but thought it was worth pointing out.

--24.125.147.87 09:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Alumni Section

Should Karl Rove and Anna Escobedo Cabral be listed in the alumni section? I think they should be taken out of the article.

  • Perhaps they should be listed as notable former students? Hiberniantears 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather have the list indicate some are former students. Alumni means you graduated. It should still be noted that Rove attended, though. --Skynet 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • An alumnus, according to the dictionary definition is "(in Latin a masculine noun) [which] refers to a male graduate or former student. (From wikipedia, of course). Technically, by this definition, a former student is also an alumnus.

Unnecessary Information

I think there are some unnecessary information that are presented in the article. 1) Admission section is unnecessary and should be taken out since wikipedia article is not a promotional material for potential students. 2) There should be some standard for putting names in the famous alumni section. Meteorologist for the local television station is a hardly notable and need to identify who has graduated from GMU and only attended classes at GMU. The section is titled as Notable Alumni and former students but most university wikipedia articles do not have a section for former students and I think it should just include students who have graduated from the university.(68.98.148.173 02:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Shouldn't it be noted that Karl Rove attended? How would you include this information? --Skynet 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I added admissions for a class profile, which how I listed it was more practical information on the process, but it has since been cleaned up to be a class profile, which it is better suited for.

Condense Campus Information

Should Each campus have its own page with information on separate points of interest (particularly Fairfax), to remove some clutter and condense the information?

  • Do any of the other universities use this type of format? --Skynet 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GMU Alumni & Students

Add "Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: George Mason University" to your user pages! Hiberniantears 15:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see Mason's category page [4] for how to associate yourself with the school on Wikipedia.--Joshua4 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Krasnow "Nobel" claim

One assumes they are referring to economists Buchanan and V. Smith, but I don't believe either of them is actually affiliated with Krasnow. Having attended one conference there doesn't equate to housing them. Buchanan works in Buchanan House, though he is soon to retire, while Vernon Smith's office is on the Arlington campus. I am thus striking the Nobel claim from the picture caption. Jjb 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Student Organizations

I think this should be used for the Organizations section

Why is a picture of the Broadside representative of the student organizations? If a picture is used, it should be something more generic, like Student Activities or the Program Board .

The Club sports list is also hard to read. Someone with more editing experience should make it a two or three column list. Andrew 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the SA logo, then. PB isn't all-inclusive. Omgitsmonica 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally came to this talk page to alert the editors that I was going to tag the seal at the top of the infobox as having no fair use rationale. However, as I did a little research, I found that it's not GMU's official logo; the one at the bottom of the infobox is. See here and here for what I'm talking about. Given that the university has very clear standards for what constitutes proper usage of its logos, I'd wager that the only way you could properly claim fair use is to use that official logo to represent GMU. With that in mind, I boldly uploaded an SVG version of the bottom logo and moved it to the top of the infbox. Obviously if you (the regular editors) feel differently, you can change it back. However, I do think you'll have a hard time justifying it as fair use. Cheers! Esrever 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Karl Rove

I seem to recall that Karl Rove was a student at GMU for a period of time (graduate work). Can anyone confirm this? Hiberniantears 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So the story goes. See Karl Rove. --Vector4F 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Considering the controversy surrounding Karl Rove, I'm not sure if that's something the school should advertise...Joshua4 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you should advertise how slanted you are. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Financial Management Association

Someone had added this organization under "Greek Life." Greek Life is so-named because the organizations are designated by Greek Letters. I deleted this organization.Corsulian 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed language on rankings

OK, I have been reverting for the past few months edits by User:Gmu1987 that continuously reinsert the redundant, and unnecessarily degrading content here: [5]. Yes, the information is sourced, and in some respects is true, but the spirit of it seems geared only to emphasize the school is ordinary; the SI quote in particular is out of context, and seems only mean-spirited. Personally, I believe this is a case of tendentious editing. The fact that Gmu1987 is a single purpose account, which only makes this contribution, but is on Wikipedia pretty much every day to revert its removal seems to indicate a high probability of a sockpuppet as well. Likewise, Gmu1987 has been hostile in edit summaries to myself and other editors, and has ignored my offer to discuss the issue on his, or this talk page. Before making any further issue out of this, I just want to get a sense from any of the other contributors to this page (or any other established editors) on whether or not their is any type of consensus to remove this material. If not, I will let it drop. Hiberniantears 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the only part that actually isn't needed is the part where Merten Peacocks the university a bit. The rest provides information that is useful to the article. If anything it needs to be cleaned up and the source needs to be put behind <ref> tags. --DBishop1984 12:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned up a little. Hopefully an edit by a third-party editor will help. if not, then User:Gmu1987 is axe grinding a bit. --DBishop1984 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is perfect DBishop, thanks for the third party opinion! Hiberniantears 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not concur, clearly, with Hibernian's assessment of my character, but I share his concurrence of your third-party update. Thanks for settling the issue and not allowing Wikipedia to serve the purposes of unbiased representation. GMU1984 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, happy to help. --DBishop1984 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed there's a Gmu1987 (talk · contribs) and a GMU1984 (talk · contribs) same person?
Edit: Nevermind, 1987 just signed incorrectly, use 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign comments. :) --DBishop1984 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for 2 articles in the article lead that make the same point (i.e. lack of name recognition). Furthermore, the second article, the one in question, is written in a belittling tone towards to GMU and totally inappropriate to be in the lead. This addition was originally posted by someone who is a heavy contributor of the JMU page (who has made it a point to compare JMU to the level of UVA and W&M with very weak and inappropriate sources), and I can only assume part of the reason he decided to post this particular article is because it compares JMU to the level of GWU, which is very debatable. This is a page about GMU, not about which founding father is better known. If you want to list problems, don’t do it in the lead and get a more appropriate source than a sports writer. Bvjrm 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with Bvjrm's action. Gmu1987 strikes me as a sock of 72.196.220.97, and the fact that Gmu1987 has only made edits to this article, as noted above, is a pretty obvious instance of sockpuppetry. I noticed that someone removed this content earlier today editing as 208.4.46.187, which appears to be located in Reston, VA. Given the nature of how this content came to be in the article in the first place, I would urge everyone to remain logged in with their real user names. No nead to make confusing what should be a pretty straight forward issue. Hiberniantears 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Regarding the IP from Reston: I've noticed through my patrolling of articles on various Virginia high schools, a lot of which are in southern VA, that both Verizon and Sprint IP addresses are based out of Reston, as well as MCI in Loudon County. So the person adding the paragraph could be from anywhere, honestly. DBishop1984 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me too. I support the change made by Bvjrm, especially the rationale that if such information belongs in the article at all, it does not belong in the lead section. (I recently Wikified a few links on this page, and the page has been showing up in my watchlist since. The editwar, while mostly civil which is much appreciated, is not useful. It seems as though a consensus has developed with several editors DBishop, Hiberniantears, et al to leave the JMU/GWU etc. debate permanently out of the lead.) N2e 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I give up. Something needs to be done with this one topic editor User:Gmu1987. He refuses to listen to reason and continues to revert our edits while claiming vandalism despite a consensus that his additions are inappropriate. Bvjrm 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a procedure for blocking or banning the user for repeat vandalism. It seems that there was a consensus of sorts, worked out on the talk page per WP policy, on not having that content in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia:Blocking policy has more information about it. User:Gmu1987 may need to be blocked from editing this article, or something similar. N2e 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is moot. Ryulong enacted an indefinite block for vandalism only [6]. I will keep an eye on this article, and if the same edits recur, I will rollback, and make warnings as necessary. Hiberniantears 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek Life List

Someone who is more versed in how the tables in Wikipedia work should edit the list of Greek organizations so that it doesn't look like all Professional Fraternities classified as Woman's Fraternities/Sororities. Andrew (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I have fixed it myself... If you have a better way to fix it, please do. Andrew (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anita Bath

Does anyone know who this is? RHA and Associates seems to be non-existent company


I'm guessing this is redundant-- RHI is Robert Half International, and I think RHA was the original name of the company-- Robert Half and Associates. It's the temp agency that runs Officeteam and Accountemps.

I might be off here, but that's what I assumed...

Seriously? Anita Bath = "I Need A Bath" Corsulian (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have requested Peer Review of this article to gather suggestions for improvement and to prepare it for a Featured Article nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/George Mason University for the discussion. Joshua4 10:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Alumni Is Huma Zaidi she works for NBC News Type in Huma zaidi and NBC News.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.96 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Programs

GMU's economics program is not well-known because it's particularly strong (Louisiana State or Alabama are equally "strong" in economics) but because of the department's ideological focus on the free market. In public policy, on the other hand, GMU is known both for its politically conservative stance as well as for the quality of its programs. In that sense economics probably doesn't belong in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.251.178 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

George Mason College

I lost my George Mason College of UVA class ring. Does anyone know how I can get another one?

Many thanks, class of 73 Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.182.8 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Anon-ip insists that none of the George Mason University#Notable alumni are notable (I disagree since several names are familiar - and I've inspected linked topics). Tedickey (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The removal of an entire section looks like vandalism from the IP editor. However, the alumni on the list should either have a WP article about them or coverage in a published source to establish notability and to establish the connection to the university. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Generally agree - the redlinks added in the past couple of months, I've googled, and generally agree that there should be a topic on most of them. (The faculty section is actually less notable when one inspects the sources for the corresponding topics - seems that some GM students or faculty write topics about the faculty - this is true of several university topics ;-). Tedickey (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

June 21 edits

  • Notable alumni section: completely unsourced
  • Mention of George Mason the man in the history section - redundant and irrelevant to the section
  • Moved sourced content at bottom of RAK section to the top of the section

173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "None" for notable alumni is clearly wrong -- if nothing else, Karl Rove attended George Mason after it split from the University of Virginia and it is referenced in Rove's article. Please be more careful in the future. - ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I double-checked and confirmed a suspicion that Rove is not an alumni of GMU. He only briefly attended the school after dropping out of the University of Utah and then enrolling in the University of Maryland and the University of Texas. See Tom Brokaw's book Boom!, page 372. An alumni is a graduate and rove did not graduate. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an alumnus ≠ a graduate. If a person attended a university, even if they did not graduate, they are considered an alumnus/alumna. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling Karl Rove an alumni of Mason really is a stretch of the truth. He took two or three classes there. If any school is listed as his alma mater it should be University of Utah or University of Maryland. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, removing the section from the page and creating a category for GMU alumni may make the most sense. Plenty of university articles lack alumni sections. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

University of Georgia is one example. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Georgia does have a page for alumni: List of University of Georgia people Bvjrm (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the article reference. I just added a link to it on the University of Georgia article. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Universities without notable alumni sections (because they dont have notable alumni): Appalachian College of Pharmacy, Appalachian School of Law, Atlantic University, Averett University, Bluefield College, Christendom College, Eastern Mennonite University, Ferrum College, Marymount University.... etc. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not in any way is that list relevant to this article. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
...Shenandoah University, Patrick Henry University, Virginia University of Lynchburg, Saint Paul's College, Marine Corps University, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine.... 173.66.36.76 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
...Baltimore International College, St. Mary's Seminary and University, Capitol College, Hood College, Maryland Bible College & Seminary, Sojourner-Douglass College, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, University System of Maryland at Hagerstown... 173.66.36.76 (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as this is a plainly silly argument to make to defend your position. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unilaterally blanking an entire section without moving the content to another article isn't acceptable. And the namesake of the institution is quite obviously appropriate for the history section. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The "notable alumni" section is almost entirely devoid of sources and has not established notability for the individuals listed. The namesake is already mentioned earlier in the article. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what axe you have to grind but stating that this institution has no notable alumni is clear POV vandalism. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Every university FA includes an alumni section. WP:UNIGUIDE recommends an alumni section. I believe there is a fairly stable and widespread consensus that including information on the alumni and faculty affiliated with the university is encyclopedic information. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Finding an article without an alumni section doesn't justify removing it from other articles. Having one clearly meets WP:UNIGUIDE standards. On the issue of mentioning George Mason in the history section: I don't think "irrelevance" is a good argument, although I'd be open to hearing others, simply for the sake of fostering dialogue. IMHO, a university's namesake is clearly worth of mention. --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how users keep pretending that it's the alumni section they want to include, and yet they continue to revert all of my edits to this page. I also like how no one has made any effort to actually source the section. Other university articles have notable alumni sections because they actually have notable alumni. Mason doesnt. As for mentioning Mason-the-man in the history section, that content is already mentioned in the introduction... but no, keep re-adding the same sentence in the history section. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to keep your blanking of the alumni section separate from your other changes. I would agree with removing the redlinked people, but if a person has a WP article, they are notable. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Without poring over every edit, I might be inclined to agree with the "all of my edits bit". But as for the notable persons, I've left a message on the IP editor's talk page about addressing the notability of the notable persons invidividually. And as for "Mason-the-man" a lead is intended to be a summary introduction to the article; IMHO it shouldn't mention Mason without featuring Mason in the body of the article, as well. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Absurd. After reverting for the first time your vandalism to the alumni section, I went back and restored your other edits by hand. I didn't do it the second time as it takes a bit of time to do that and I no longer assume good faith with you. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You didnt assume good faith in the first place.[7] How could you stop what you didn't start? 173.66.36.76 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's quite a baseless indictment, since the diff doesn't demonstrate any bad faith. To ask others to assume good faith is why we have WP:AAGF, and blanking sections is clearly vandalism WP:VANDAL. If the anonymous editor assumes that having his/her edits marked as vandalism, when they are clearly vandalism, is assuming bad faith then he/she is sadly mistaken. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I was the last editor to revert all the edits. I went back and restored all the non-alumni related edits done by 173.66.36.76. I probably should have just restored the alumni section earlier. Sorry. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Alumni

I categorically reject the notion that there have been no notable alumni. It's absurd and given the alumni listed in this article I question the objectivity of anyone who holds that position. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the entries that are both redlinked and uncited, so there should be no further beef with the section unless someone wants to address the notability of the biographical articles in a separate arena. Interesting that the anonymous editor would point readers to UVA instead. Perhaps the argument is that GMU hasn't had any notable alumni since the split. Seems fishy to me. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I did forget one thing: the list really ought to be in paragraph format per WP:UNIGUIDE. --King of the Arverni (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the removal of redlinked content left more than a threadbare list, perhaps it should be spun out into a List of George Mason University people article with only the most notable ones prosified? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it's long enough for that? I'm not entirely certain it is. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

George Mason in history section

There should certainly be some discussion of the namesake of this institution in the history section as it's clearly an important part of the institution's history. That he is also mentioned in the introduction is of no consequence. The introduction is a summary of the entire article so of course there is overlap between the introduction and the rest of the article; it's intentional and desired! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Familiarity with WP:LEAD communicates that quite clearly. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
One would expect the articles for Harvard University, George Washington University, Washington University in St. Louis, Duke University, Rockefeller University, etc. to have some discussion of their namesake in the body of the article. Lo and behold, they do! Madcoverboy (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As Madcoverboy posted above, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Either these policies apply in all cases or they do not apply at all. Mason's identity has nothing to do with the history of the university. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how guidelines on deletion policies apply in any way to discussions on whether or not a university's namesake should be included in the history section of an encyclopedia article about that same university. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
So you agree to remove the alumni section? Because if you are going to say that they dont apply here, then the long list of other universities without an "alumni section" set the precedent for removing the AS section on this page. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia is no more a common law court than it is a democracy; precedent doesn't establish argument alone. The very existence of articles that don't meet UNIGUIDE standards does even less to support that argument -- it's like telling the authorities that your house, which has just been inspected, shouldn't be condemned because the house next door, which hasn't been inspected yet, is worse.
2) Per UNIGUIDE, which does hold guideline status and is relevant to this university article (unlike a deletion policy guideline that does not apply in this situation, wherein we are not discussing deletion), the article should have a notable persons section.
3) WP:TALK dictates that we must stay on-topic. This section is for the discussion re: George Mason, not the alumni, and deletion policy guidelines (such as WP:WAX) do not apply in this situation. I request that the anonymous editor please respect the talk guidelines. --King of the Arverni (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

I can find no record that Karl Rove ever graduated from the university. If he's merely listed as attending and not graduating, this should be specified to avoid the situation of Charles Pellegrino who is accused of falsely claiming a doctorate when he failed to complete his thesis. (I removed a spurious link that was used as a reference.)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Other articles state he did not graduate.[8] Rather than remove his entry, I'll change his status to 'attendee' and let consensus decide whether to keep or remove it.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Alumni covers more than graduates (and there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for ignoring the "graduate" aspect) Tedickey (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I returned Rove's entry to the rest of alumni because he is an alumnus even though he is not a graduate (and there is no claim that he did graduate). I also added a reference from the WSJ about his attendance. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Who Governs George Mason University

Who governs George Mason University? Is there a board of trustees, as other universities have? I have been unable to find any reference to it, except a foundation comprised of non-notables which seems highly unlikely to provide the stewardship for it... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Underground newspaper

Does GMU have an underground newspaper these days? The old one used to be Expulsion. Oliver Adriance, Writer/Editor/Publisher/CEO of Expulsion/TMH! Productions, notes, "Expulsion was an independent student newspaper at George Mason University. Known mostly for our satire, we also did news, commentary and culture. The paper topped out with a circulation of 4,000 and a volunteer staff of around 40 writers." AccountsPayable (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Mason 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.

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

random notability

In contrast to editor's extended footnote collecting some trivial mentions, notable persons on Wikipedia in general would have a topic devoted to them. TEDickey (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Same error as before, people do not need to have an article specifically about them in order to be mentioned in an article not specifically about them . Also, I think a lot of people would be offended by your calling the work of the Boston Globe trivial. Abel (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Any news media can make trivial mention of your favorite persons. Your task is to choose suitable sources rather than purely promotional edits TEDickey (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not have a favorite person. I realize that you are stuck on the promotional edit theory, which is laughable given that I had no idea who Denise Tuner Roth was until I looked her up, which is exactly what the people deleting the mention of her should have bothered to do before deleting the mention of her. Abel (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't taken the time to lookup the meaning of "trivial mention", which takes less time than your edits. TEDickey (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Abel (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
To help with the discussion, start with these: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Trivial mentions TEDickey (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of your edits is to circumvent the guidelines on notability by introducing editorial opinion as an unverifiable footnote TEDickey (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Your repeated edits to change the subject of this thread are not constructive. TEDickey (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you are really stuck on both attempting to frame the discussion with a disparaging title and the misrepresentation of opinion pieces as policy. As usual, Wikipedia policy means little to nothing and whatever the most aggressive person says is "the way it is" ends up being the way that it is. Abel (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Since you aren't making any attempt to resolve the issue in your edits, I assume you are referring to yourself in the latter part of your reply. The guideline which you state means nothing does say "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Your editorial comment in the footnote and the given sources appear to fall short of that mark. You have provided the original research for this; there is no secondary source which provides comparable coverage. From the information given so far, it does not appear possible to create a topic for this person, since they are not notable in the sense of the guideline. TEDickey (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the context and subject of this discussion but it may be important to note that WP:N only applies to the subject of an article; it does not apply to the content of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not much of a discussion. TEDickey wishes to protect the good name of George Mason University by deleting all but the most famous of famous people entered into the notable alumni section. To justify that act they cite an opinion piece. So far, nothing more than that. Abel (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Some editors prefer to attack other editors rather than address issues, pointedly selecting their comments to make it seem as if the issue were something other than what some may notice. The issue in this thread is the lengthy footnote explaining an editor's opinion that notability is irrelevant when looking for filler material, likewise no leeway is needed for verifiability. TEDickey (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Case in point. Abel (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

When WP includes lists of "notable people" in articles about institutions or academic traditions, the WP notablity criteria apply. Red-linked or unlinked elements should be deleted from such lists. This does not mean that all mentions in article content must be "notable" in the sense of warranting a separate article. That's not the test for article content in general but it is the well-established practice for lists captioned "notable..." @Tedickey: is correct. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." ElKevbo (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
As I tried to make clear in my previous message, notability is "not the test for article content in general, but it is the well-established practice for list captioned "notable..." Please respond, rather than repeat your statement from before my reply. Notability is not the test for all article content -- nobody has disputed that -- but "notable" has a defined meaning on WP and at least one name on that list is not a WP:NOTABLE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You could move forward by (a) removing the editorial opinion and (b) providing verifiable weblinks to your sources. If none are available for the latter, perhaps those are ephemeral (not suitable for reliable sources in any event). TEDickey (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Denise Turner Roth being discussed here? She meets notability standards as she's an official who receives Senate confirmation. Per WP:REDLINK an article on her should be created. With this in mind I'm going to link her name. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
For extra credit, here is a comparable list to work on: http://webpmt.usps.gov/pmt017.cfm TEDickey (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@Srich32977: "She meets notability standards as she's an official who receives Senate confirmation." -- Interesting. Please provide a link to the WP policy that makes that statement. WP:REDLINK begs the question, and that guideline does not relate to the notability determination. Thanks and best wishes for 2016. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Mason 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.

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Law school name change

It may be appropriate to very briefly mention the proposed name change for the law school in this article but we shouldn't make any substantive changes until the name of the school is actually changed because it's still pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia as described in this article from the Roanoke Times published today. ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The current code has no name change whatsoever. What it does have is all the correct formatting for the name change that already happened yet people keep insisting is not yet real, and has a wealth of citations supporting what has happened so far. Editors have already made a mess of the code. Probably not intentionally as the code is complex. So leave the code alone so that when the name change finally gets accepted as real anyone can easily replace the name and not make a mess out of the code. Abel (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

University traditions do not deserve a mention in an encyclopedia

Which maybe be true, but if true then I cannot explain the 14,822 characters that form the Traditions section of the University of Georgia article. Abel (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I have a theory. Georgia dates back to 1785 while Mason 1949. Since Georgia is 232 years old, that article deserves traditions. Since Mason is only 68, that article does not deserve traditions.Abel (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Another but more probable theory, fixing the not good text within traditions section would prove difficult so deleting is much easier. Abel (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is advocating that "university traditions do not deserve a mention in an encyclopedia" or where this is coming from but it's complete nonsense and the onus is on the person(s) making that claim to justify it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The advice we should follow is at WP:UNIGUIDE. (Which, by the way, incorrectly focuses on "Notable" when it should say WP:Noteworthy.) Id4abel and I have been chatting on Abel's talk page about adding images. I think the wider editing issue is about how well the "Traditions" section is written. Following the UNIGUIDE we can retitle the section Student life and improve the prose. – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree, the wording is not good and was probably copy and pasted from an old Mason website or brochure. The images were only a way to make the section slightly less awful. Then after the images were deleted an IP user decided to delete even more citing “no reason for this in encyclopedia” and “trivia”. That festival of deleting is probably good as the not good prose within the Traditions section is getting more attention, and to be perfectly honest I have no good ideas on how to improve it (hence adding images to make it slightly less bad). Abel (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The same (maybe a different but probably the same) IP user is back to deleting traditions. This time the entire Mason Day section because "no encyclopdic interest. Needs non GMU source for notewortiness test. Trivia." Abel (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The traditions section is now shorter, far less silly, and cites National Public Radio and the Falls Church News-Press. Better? Abel (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on George Mason University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Koch family influence

I am surprised that this article doesn't include any discussion of the GMU's relationship with the Koch brothers and the broader political, economic, and legal movements associated with them. I found many article that suggest that this is noteworthy topic: AP article, Atlantic Monthly article, Fairfax Times article. The AP article starts with "George Mason University, a public school outside the nation’s capital, has quietly become a conservative powerhouse in economics and law, a reputation built in part with tens of millions of dollars a year from billionaire Republican donor Charles Koch." The separate article on the Mercatus Center discusses the Koch brothers, but I couldn't find anything in the article that reflects this information, nor anything in the history or the talk page that suggests that it has been addressed at some point. Before I wade into a hornet's nest, I thought I would find out whether I'm missing something. Rks13 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Slaveowner"

It was suggested that I bring this to the talk page, so I will.

The repeated addition of "slaveowner" and removal of more relevant information, like the fact that George Mason authored the document that the Bill of Rights was based on, is not appropriate for this article. The topic of this article is the university, not whether the namesake owned slaves, which is entirely irrelevant to why the school is named for him, and not anywhere near one of the most notable things about him. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body, and the body is, again, about the university. This needs to be corrected. Natureium (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Fix Errors Re Me

"George Mason University economist Robin Hanson stirred controversy in 2018, when he argued for “redistribution” policies for sex three days after the Toronto Van attack.[183] Further controversy was raised when archives of his previous writing, in which he argued infidelity is comparable to “gentle silent rape”, were read."

This is incorrect/misleading in two ways: 1) I did not "argue for" redistribution; I compared sex and income redistribution without arguing for either. 2) I did not compare "infidelity" in general to silent rape; I instead compared silent rape to infidelity that leads to a father unkowingly raising a kid for a long time that isn't his biologically.

RobinHanson (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHanson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert unreliable source

An unregistered editor has begun an edit war to insert the following paragraph as a new section labeled "Illegal Hiring Based on Race."

In 2021, GMU President announced that he would be hiring new faculty based on race, despite it being illegal under U.S. Law. He justified this by stating, incorrectly, that the student population was minority white and that this was reflective of the United States (which is over 60% white, whereas GMU's student is less than 50% white). GMU's president then said that if two candidates were equally qualified, that the "non-white" candidate would be superior.[1][2]

First, there are no indications that this (obviously partisan) source is reliable. Second, a new section based solely on this one source is clearly undue weight. If this is a genuinely noteworthy event, editors are obligated to provide reliable sources that clearly establish it as a noteworthy event that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article. This is not a news blog and we are not obligated (nor can we) to include every event that occurs at this university nor every opinion about what occurs at this university. More importantly, we don't include information from partisan sources in Wikipedia's voice; at a minimum it would have to be attributed. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I'm COI with respect to Mason) I concur with ElKevbo - undue weight, source is unreliable, and the phrasing is very WP:SYNTH/non-neutral given the reliability of the source. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Our unregistered colleague added additional sources but they are of the same caliber and partisan status as the original source so they do little to change this discussion. Since there has been no response, I have removed the material. Editors who disagree are encouraged to participate in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "George Mason University to discriminate in faculty hiring based on race". Liberty Unyielding. Retrieved 2021-05-05.
  2. ^ "GMU President's email to GMU Faculty about Inclusive Excellence Framework for Hiring". Liberty Unyielding. Retrieved 2021-05-05.

History

The section describing what happened starting in 1972 sounds like it was written by the University's press office. I have marked it as lacking a neutral point of view. Matt Zeidenberg (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GMU Fairfax Campus was built on top of two different county-equivalent jurisdictions (separate unrelated municipalities that share the same name and are next to each other).

Its technically an improvement because the Fairfax Campus transcends the two different county-equivalent jurisdictions of Fairfax County and the Independent City of Fairfax. 76.78.141.103 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked you again and again to read MOS:LEADLANG before inserting the foreign language name and you straight out removed my warning, with no edit summary or discussion whatsoever. You also keep reverting edits without any discussion when others warned you about WP:OL. Care to explain why? Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 08:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Korean name of university

George Mason University is an international university with locations in both the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, thus the inclusion of both its English name and Korean name is deemed justified, see MOS:LEADLANG 76.78.140.163 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That guideline states: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence.... (emphasis added)" What evidence do you have that this university is closely associated with Korean? Simply having a presence in the country does not seem sufficient to me; many U.S. universities have campuses or significant presences in other countries but I don't know of any instance in which we have included the name of the university in those countries' languages in the lede sentence.
In any case, it's unacceptable for you to edit war over this; please stop. ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Notable Faculty

[9] All of these professors should be included as notable faculty. Some are already there. Trefil and Hazen for example are regarded very highly in their respective fields. If you noticed, Trefil already has his own wikipedia page, thus showing that he is a recognized person.

Final Four

I am deleteing the sentence "In what is regarded as the greatest upset in NCAA history"... it happend all of three hours from the time that I am writing this, there is absolutley no way someone can objectively make that statement. It's a great accomplishment, but to make that claim only hours after the accomplishment its ridiculous.

Mid Majors in Final Four

There was a statement that said they were the first mid-major since 1979 to be in the Final 4, when Penn made it as a #9 seed. This is not true, there have been a handful of "mid-majors" (or for argument's sake, teams not from one of the 6 BCS conferences) to have made the Final 4 since 1979, they were just all #1 seeds so it wasn't such a surprise that they did it. Indiana St. did it as a #1 (also in 1979), so did UNLV in 1990/91, as did UMass in 1996. There are others but I'm pretty sure they are in BCS conferences now if they weren't at the time of their Final Four appearance. I changed it to "the first team from a mid-major conference that was not seeded #1 to reach the Final Four since 1979, when Penn reached as a #9 seed."

marcusmv3 12:58, 28 March 2006

GMU Police

Another prominent aspect of GMU is the seemingly ubiquitous presence of the GMU Police.. there is a ratio of approximately 1 officer per 135 resident students. Thc420 05:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats common of all universities. Agriculture 05:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Common" is ill-defined, but "all" isn't; the above is false. 1 officer per 200-300 students is more the norm according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.81.91 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Upper level academic programs

I added a small section about the Honors Program in Gen. Ed. and the University Scholars program because I feel that in the coming years they will become more and more well known. It is also useful for those using Wikipedia for admissions info.

University Housing

The current copy says that student housing for 700 students opened in 1986. This is incorrect. I started at GMU in 1981 and the student apartments were already open. In the fall of 1982 I moved into the 2nd dorm building when it opened (Dominion Hall, Commonweath Hall had already opened).

GMU Presidents Past and Present

Under the Presidents Past and Present section, "George W. Johnson, (1978-1996)" links to a page on George Washington Johnson, an African-American singer and song recording artist who died in 1914. The correct "George W. Johnson" is George William (not Washington) Johnson, who was born in 1928.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Mason_University/Archive_1&oldid=1170450080"