![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For some reason, someone (I believe "Meliton," if I'm reading the page history correctly), has mucked up the Notable Faculty list. A series of changes on January 17, 2009 resulted in a section that was de-alphabetized, less wikified, and which removed numerous names--all of which were either of persons who are the subject of their own Wikipedia entries (and internal links were provided) or who were substantially referenced in other Wikipedia entries (again with internal links). And all this was done with no mention on the talk pages and no edit summary. I had taken the time to input all those names, so of course I'm annoyed, but I think that this behavior pretty objectively violates numerous Wikipedia norms. I plan to undo the changes when I get a chance, but I wanted to raise attention to the problem, in hopes that we won't see this kind of thing again. If you think there's a reason to substantially edit someone's work, at least give some notice and say why you're doing it. And for goodness sake don't de-alphabetize and de-wikify something--there's never a reason for that! Rlsusc ( talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know what the greek on the shield is so that the real motto can go up instead of the mission statement? Madmaxmarchhare 00:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone from a Chapman University IP ( 192.77.116.15 ( talk · contribs)) has added the Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research twice to the article. According to the Chapman University Website, the only info on an Eric Stinton is on a member of the crew team [1]. Unless someone can provide a reliable resource on the Dinosaur Research Center, it can only be assumed that the information added is false. Adding false information is considered vandalism, and among other remedies, adding the information into the Chapman University article may result in getting the Chapman University IP blocked from editing, and getting the Chapman University article protected against editing by anonymous IPs. Blank Verse 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I know for sure, but I'm skeptical about some of those movies being filmed nearby or at Chapman campus (Apocalypto and Blood Diamond are two obvious examples). Someone might want to look into this or remove these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.203.66.2 ( talk) 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Correct -- neither Apocalypto nor Blood Diamond were filmed at or near Chapman. Apocalypto did screen at Chapman (I was there!) but to my knowledge there's no connection with Blood Diamond. Rowana77 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia point of view, I must honestly say I'm uncertain as to whether there should even be this "FERPA" section on the page. I would like to get feedback from anyone who is NOT involved with the issue! BlackberryLaw 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, first-time user. I am a member of the Chapman communications department staff, and they've asked me to keep an eye on the page since an anonymous person sent us (via snail mail) a printout of the Chapman page containing the added section about FERPA -- clearly meant as a goad to make us monitor the page. The persons involved with posting this FERPA section are apparently involved with some sort of dispute with the university involving a group that participated in the fraternity approval process but did not make the final cut, and have somehow brought FERPA into the argument -- we think it may be persons involved with that group who are posting the FERPA paragraphs. Not sure of the whole story, but it's long and involved, and the online attacks against the university have been pretty sophomoric, if you ask me. We're not sure if the FERPA paragraphs they are posting are completely accurate, and in any case, they do not really belong on a page that is supposed to be general information about the university. They are obviously being posted by an individual who wants us to waste university time and effort editing the page (we're actually on summer break and kind of enjoying the very low-level excitement this is providing...but I'm kind of low on the totem pole, so it's not like the dean or president is making these edits, guys...they don't even know about it, and I'm just a working person like you). Anyway -- it would be nice not to have to monitor the page for these postings from someone who obviously has an axe to grind against the university. Rowana77 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
BlackBerryLaw, I am a parent and want you and any other contributors to know that this information regarding FERPA absolutely belongs on this page. When you pay $40,000 to send your child to college this is the type of information that is important to post and is what makes Wikipedia such an excellent source for information. Can the actual document related to this violation be located and posted? This would really be beneficial to any readers of this page.
Rowanna, - the FERPA issue appears to be factual. Whether someone has as you write, "an axe to grind" is irrelevant. The facts are the facts and by twisting the facts to state they are attacks is inappropriate. You write that you have been asked to monitor this page, but confirm that the dean and president don't even know about this. Maybe you should consult with them. I am certain the administration would be able to confirm if there was ever a FERPA violation and then your question regarding accuracy would be answered. If you don't want to monitor this page, confirm the facts and if they are indeed correct, then no monitoring is necessary.
Someone has recently removed sections of this article pertaining to negative things happening on campus. I urge this person to realize that Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, not opinions. If there are supporting facts and links to articles which support sections, those sections will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.66 ( talk) 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This issue is really a controversy among students but I would like to see the topic discussed with no bias. The way the section is written, in my opinion, sounds biased, but thats why I nominated it for having the wrong POV. I'll let other editors give their opinion here. RickyCourtney ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on people, are you serious? While most people know that Chapman has heavy undertones of Christianity all throughout campus, the school is non-denominational. Religious courses in a specific religion are not required. Chapman is not part of Wiki-christianity, unless of course you'd like to nominate it for Wiki Judaism and every other religion represented by students on campus. 72.130.39.180
Ok, I am a Chapman student, AND just watched Forrest Gump to confirm it. Forrest Gump was not filmed at Chapman, at all, as neither were many other movie many people *claim* were filmed here (another common one is Back to the Future). I would just change it, but I am sure someone will change it back very quickly. There are many rumors on campus about what was filmed here and what wasn't. That Thing You Do: check. Accepted: check. Ghost Whisperer: check. Many other things: not true. Just because something was filmed on a park bench does not mean it was filmed at or by Chapman, so if you have "heard" something was filmed at Chapman, check it out for yourself first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.77 ( talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On this note, I'm fairly sure The Fourth Kind was not filmed at Chapman, even if the interviews supposedly took place there. There is no room in any building on this campus that has 3 flat-panel screens like what resembled on screen. However just in case I'm incorrect, I won't remove it from the list just yet. -- Fez2005 ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So, how long is the stuff about Sigma going to stay up? It is pretty much old news now (and I personally feel that it was never even close to a big deal, although I know members of the frat. would argue). The stuff about Tony Garcia has come and past, time for this to go as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.12.75 ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Rlsusc...Your comment is out of line: "These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite"
Your comment relates to former Dean of Students, Joseph Kertes. To state these students slandered Mr. Kertes is outrageous. This was Mr. Kertes' defense when he finally realized that his actions were in violation of the law. Anti-semitism had nothing to do with the issue, but it was a nice distraction. The Sigma Alpha Mu issue was about first amendment rights...period.
Chapman's handling of the Sigma Alpha Mu matter was and is an important issue that needs to be on this site. The University, in all their wisdom violated California Education Code Section 94367 (Leonard Law). This law provides first amendment protection to students at private colleges and the fact that the University ignored such an important law is indeed relevant. This situation is no more a controversy than the civil rights issues that are part of the history of the University of Alabama and other southern institutions. As far as making this a Jewish issue - this was created solely by the University. The students in the fraternity and the national fraternity made it clear that anti-semitism was not an issue. The anti-semitic issue was merely the University's defense. The University knew they were wrong and administrators were reprimanded for their actions. The matter is not over as since this story was reported other students have come forth with similar allegations against the Chapman administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meliton ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point, the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" is old news and, as one of the editors responsible for its initial inclusion and early defense, I think that it's worn out its welcome in this general article about Chapman. It was relevant when it was an ongoing issue. Now that things are resolved, I don't see a place for it here. Imagine if every college page kept accounts of every alleged violation or controversy - it would be unworkable. So, in the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, I'll remove that section in a short time. BlackberryLaw ( talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Rlsuusc- I know you've always had a problem with this information being up on the wikipedia page for Chapman University. I'm not sure if you're a university employee, or a member of Greek Life at Chapman. Either way, when a student's rights are violated, it is a big deal. A lot of users think that these men have "an axe to grind" against the university, however, after interviewing them for an article I wrote for the school paper a year back, I've seen that all the members really wanted was an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy. I'm not debating whether or not it should stay on wikipedia, but to be-little this argument by calling it a nothing-issue just shows your ignorance and flat out rudeness. I vote for the information to stay. 72.130.39.180 ( talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Helander77; let's please make this stop. RE the comment on 27 October 2008: I would maintain that it is neither "ignorant" nor "rude" to state the facts. The news reports plainly show these guys went through a fraternity colonization process, lost fair and square, and then wanted to pretend they hadn't lost (or as you more euphemistically put it, they wanted "an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy"). A private university has its own First Amendment rights, and has the right to decide which new fraternities they want to charter. These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite, just because they couldn't accept the fact that the University didn't pick the fraternity they wanted to join. And now some of them still would rather defame their own school on Wikipedia rather than let it go. Rlsusc ( talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please dump it -- it was never of real significance. It does as much damage to Wikipedia to be highjacked in this way as it does to the reputation of the University to have such a nothing issue given such prominence. -- Rlsusc ( talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" again - I'm a Chapman alumnus and sick of seeing this every time I go to this page for general information about the university. It is very obviously from someone with an ax to grind, and as Blackberrylaw says, if every university (or corporation, or organization) was open to attack by every group or individual who had a gripe or controversy to air, Wikipedia would be a lot longer than it is, and a lot harder for users to parse through. Every university in the world has a long list of people and groups with gripes against it (some of which appear in newspapers, and thus are "verifiable"). To keep playing this one out here smacks of someone with an agenda. There should be no place for this on a general info page. Helander77 ( talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's out of line?? Again with this Sigma Moo hoo-ha. Someone with a huge ax to grind. Not appropriate at all for a general history of the university. This idiotic frat argument has been going on for more than a year and they are trying to play it out on Wikipedia because they lost otherwise. The university gave them rights on campus, end of story, even though they did not bother to go through the normal procedure to be approved as a registered fraternity. (Oh, wait, they did give a shot at the procedure, and pitched a huge temper tantrum when they weren't approved. None of the other fraternities that weren't approved pitched a similar fit -- they all accepted it and worked toward approval in the next cycle.) Please don't let them carry this childish ongoing tantrum onto Wikipedia, or use Wikipedia as their propaganda pulpit for a story that is of interest to a handful of people in the frat at most. The rest of us are tired of this. Helander77 ( talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Sigma Moo vandalism again -- this seems clearly to be in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Again, this is a small student group trying to get publicity for an issue decided over a year ago, which Wikipedia administrators agreed was old news. If every student group who had a beef with every university posted their dirty laundry on Wikipedia, the general public would be parsing through reams of propaganda and opinion to get to the general info about the school. It does not belong on a general information page. Helander77 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed the frat-boy vandalism AGAIN, as seems to be a continuing problem here. As post says above, this clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and does not belong on a general information page about the university. Go be juvenile on your own page. Sekhmet07 ( talk) 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen, people: The fraternity "controversy" is OLD NEWS. It doesn't belong on the Chapman page two years after it all went down. As a comparison, the UCLA_Taser_incident doesn't appear anywhere on the UCLA page, and it was a WAY bigger deal than this fraternity deal. It's time for it to go. BlackberryLaw ( talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What? Jelena Jensen, who graduated MCL citation needed, is not a notable alumna? What about WP:NOTCENSORED? (And I'm a Chapman alum.) -- S. Rich ( talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Four attempts were made to remove Jelena Jensen from the list of notable alumni today. The attempts were made by four different single-purpose accounts:
Note that C23yesser admitted to a conflict of interest with the university in his/her edit summary.
Now, there's discussion above ( #Jelena Jensen deletion) that shows that there is not consensus to remove Jensen from the article. There are sources in Jensen's article to corroborate her attendance of the university, and she still meets the guidelines for the notable alumni list as mentioned in the first discussion.
If an editor (or editors, but I highly suspect it's a single editor, or a single campaign, behind the accounts above) has a concern about Jensen's inclusion, I invite them to discuss the matter here. Creating a string of accounts, each of which does little more than remove Jensen from the list, does nothing to boost the cause—and may, in the long run, do more to keep her listed in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Brandman University shouldn't really redirect to Chapman University since it is a separate entity. Does anyone know how to remove the redirect so a new page can be created?
Jahoerbelt ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Jaime
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Chapman 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we include the biannual world famous "undie run"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.32 ( talk) 01:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Chapman 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For some reason, someone (I believe "Meliton," if I'm reading the page history correctly), has mucked up the Notable Faculty list. A series of changes on January 17, 2009 resulted in a section that was de-alphabetized, less wikified, and which removed numerous names--all of which were either of persons who are the subject of their own Wikipedia entries (and internal links were provided) or who were substantially referenced in other Wikipedia entries (again with internal links). And all this was done with no mention on the talk pages and no edit summary. I had taken the time to input all those names, so of course I'm annoyed, but I think that this behavior pretty objectively violates numerous Wikipedia norms. I plan to undo the changes when I get a chance, but I wanted to raise attention to the problem, in hopes that we won't see this kind of thing again. If you think there's a reason to substantially edit someone's work, at least give some notice and say why you're doing it. And for goodness sake don't de-alphabetize and de-wikify something--there's never a reason for that! Rlsusc ( talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know what the greek on the shield is so that the real motto can go up instead of the mission statement? Madmaxmarchhare 00:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone from a Chapman University IP ( 192.77.116.15 ( talk · contribs)) has added the Eric M. Stinton Center for Dinosaur Research twice to the article. According to the Chapman University Website, the only info on an Eric Stinton is on a member of the crew team [1]. Unless someone can provide a reliable resource on the Dinosaur Research Center, it can only be assumed that the information added is false. Adding false information is considered vandalism, and among other remedies, adding the information into the Chapman University article may result in getting the Chapman University IP blocked from editing, and getting the Chapman University article protected against editing by anonymous IPs. Blank Verse 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I know for sure, but I'm skeptical about some of those movies being filmed nearby or at Chapman campus (Apocalypto and Blood Diamond are two obvious examples). Someone might want to look into this or remove these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.203.66.2 ( talk) 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Correct -- neither Apocalypto nor Blood Diamond were filmed at or near Chapman. Apocalypto did screen at Chapman (I was there!) but to my knowledge there's no connection with Blood Diamond. Rowana77 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia point of view, I must honestly say I'm uncertain as to whether there should even be this "FERPA" section on the page. I would like to get feedback from anyone who is NOT involved with the issue! BlackberryLaw 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, first-time user. I am a member of the Chapman communications department staff, and they've asked me to keep an eye on the page since an anonymous person sent us (via snail mail) a printout of the Chapman page containing the added section about FERPA -- clearly meant as a goad to make us monitor the page. The persons involved with posting this FERPA section are apparently involved with some sort of dispute with the university involving a group that participated in the fraternity approval process but did not make the final cut, and have somehow brought FERPA into the argument -- we think it may be persons involved with that group who are posting the FERPA paragraphs. Not sure of the whole story, but it's long and involved, and the online attacks against the university have been pretty sophomoric, if you ask me. We're not sure if the FERPA paragraphs they are posting are completely accurate, and in any case, they do not really belong on a page that is supposed to be general information about the university. They are obviously being posted by an individual who wants us to waste university time and effort editing the page (we're actually on summer break and kind of enjoying the very low-level excitement this is providing...but I'm kind of low on the totem pole, so it's not like the dean or president is making these edits, guys...they don't even know about it, and I'm just a working person like you). Anyway -- it would be nice not to have to monitor the page for these postings from someone who obviously has an axe to grind against the university. Rowana77 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
BlackBerryLaw, I am a parent and want you and any other contributors to know that this information regarding FERPA absolutely belongs on this page. When you pay $40,000 to send your child to college this is the type of information that is important to post and is what makes Wikipedia such an excellent source for information. Can the actual document related to this violation be located and posted? This would really be beneficial to any readers of this page.
Rowanna, - the FERPA issue appears to be factual. Whether someone has as you write, "an axe to grind" is irrelevant. The facts are the facts and by twisting the facts to state they are attacks is inappropriate. You write that you have been asked to monitor this page, but confirm that the dean and president don't even know about this. Maybe you should consult with them. I am certain the administration would be able to confirm if there was ever a FERPA violation and then your question regarding accuracy would be answered. If you don't want to monitor this page, confirm the facts and if they are indeed correct, then no monitoring is necessary.
Someone has recently removed sections of this article pertaining to negative things happening on campus. I urge this person to realize that Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, not opinions. If there are supporting facts and links to articles which support sections, those sections will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.66 ( talk) 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This issue is really a controversy among students but I would like to see the topic discussed with no bias. The way the section is written, in my opinion, sounds biased, but thats why I nominated it for having the wrong POV. I'll let other editors give their opinion here. RickyCourtney ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on people, are you serious? While most people know that Chapman has heavy undertones of Christianity all throughout campus, the school is non-denominational. Religious courses in a specific religion are not required. Chapman is not part of Wiki-christianity, unless of course you'd like to nominate it for Wiki Judaism and every other religion represented by students on campus. 72.130.39.180
Ok, I am a Chapman student, AND just watched Forrest Gump to confirm it. Forrest Gump was not filmed at Chapman, at all, as neither were many other movie many people *claim* were filmed here (another common one is Back to the Future). I would just change it, but I am sure someone will change it back very quickly. There are many rumors on campus about what was filmed here and what wasn't. That Thing You Do: check. Accepted: check. Ghost Whisperer: check. Many other things: not true. Just because something was filmed on a park bench does not mean it was filmed at or by Chapman, so if you have "heard" something was filmed at Chapman, check it out for yourself first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.77 ( talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On this note, I'm fairly sure The Fourth Kind was not filmed at Chapman, even if the interviews supposedly took place there. There is no room in any building on this campus that has 3 flat-panel screens like what resembled on screen. However just in case I'm incorrect, I won't remove it from the list just yet. -- Fez2005 ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So, how long is the stuff about Sigma going to stay up? It is pretty much old news now (and I personally feel that it was never even close to a big deal, although I know members of the frat. would argue). The stuff about Tony Garcia has come and past, time for this to go as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.12.75 ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Rlsusc...Your comment is out of line: "These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite"
Your comment relates to former Dean of Students, Joseph Kertes. To state these students slandered Mr. Kertes is outrageous. This was Mr. Kertes' defense when he finally realized that his actions were in violation of the law. Anti-semitism had nothing to do with the issue, but it was a nice distraction. The Sigma Alpha Mu issue was about first amendment rights...period.
Chapman's handling of the Sigma Alpha Mu matter was and is an important issue that needs to be on this site. The University, in all their wisdom violated California Education Code Section 94367 (Leonard Law). This law provides first amendment protection to students at private colleges and the fact that the University ignored such an important law is indeed relevant. This situation is no more a controversy than the civil rights issues that are part of the history of the University of Alabama and other southern institutions. As far as making this a Jewish issue - this was created solely by the University. The students in the fraternity and the national fraternity made it clear that anti-semitism was not an issue. The anti-semitic issue was merely the University's defense. The University knew they were wrong and administrators were reprimanded for their actions. The matter is not over as since this story was reported other students have come forth with similar allegations against the Chapman administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meliton ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point, the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" is old news and, as one of the editors responsible for its initial inclusion and early defense, I think that it's worn out its welcome in this general article about Chapman. It was relevant when it was an ongoing issue. Now that things are resolved, I don't see a place for it here. Imagine if every college page kept accounts of every alleged violation or controversy - it would be unworkable. So, in the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary, I'll remove that section in a short time. BlackberryLaw ( talk) 03:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Rlsuusc- I know you've always had a problem with this information being up on the wikipedia page for Chapman University. I'm not sure if you're a university employee, or a member of Greek Life at Chapman. Either way, when a student's rights are violated, it is a big deal. A lot of users think that these men have "an axe to grind" against the university, however, after interviewing them for an article I wrote for the school paper a year back, I've seen that all the members really wanted was an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy. I'm not debating whether or not it should stay on wikipedia, but to be-little this argument by calling it a nothing-issue just shows your ignorance and flat out rudeness. I vote for the information to stay. 72.130.39.180 ( talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Helander77; let's please make this stop. RE the comment on 27 October 2008: I would maintain that it is neither "ignorant" nor "rude" to state the facts. The news reports plainly show these guys went through a fraternity colonization process, lost fair and square, and then wanted to pretend they hadn't lost (or as you more euphemistically put it, they wanted "an outlet for the same kind of fraternal bond that on campus fraternities can enjoy"). A private university has its own First Amendment rights, and has the right to decide which new fraternities they want to charter. These guys dragged the University through the mud, and even slandered a Holocaust-survivor as an anti-Semite, just because they couldn't accept the fact that the University didn't pick the fraternity they wanted to join. And now some of them still would rather defame their own school on Wikipedia rather than let it go. Rlsusc ( talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please dump it -- it was never of real significance. It does as much damage to Wikipedia to be highjacked in this way as it does to the reputation of the University to have such a nothing issue given such prominence. -- Rlsusc ( talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the Sigma Alpha Mu "controversy" again - I'm a Chapman alumnus and sick of seeing this every time I go to this page for general information about the university. It is very obviously from someone with an ax to grind, and as Blackberrylaw says, if every university (or corporation, or organization) was open to attack by every group or individual who had a gripe or controversy to air, Wikipedia would be a lot longer than it is, and a lot harder for users to parse through. Every university in the world has a long list of people and groups with gripes against it (some of which appear in newspapers, and thus are "verifiable"). To keep playing this one out here smacks of someone with an agenda. There should be no place for this on a general info page. Helander77 ( talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's out of line?? Again with this Sigma Moo hoo-ha. Someone with a huge ax to grind. Not appropriate at all for a general history of the university. This idiotic frat argument has been going on for more than a year and they are trying to play it out on Wikipedia because they lost otherwise. The university gave them rights on campus, end of story, even though they did not bother to go through the normal procedure to be approved as a registered fraternity. (Oh, wait, they did give a shot at the procedure, and pitched a huge temper tantrum when they weren't approved. None of the other fraternities that weren't approved pitched a similar fit -- they all accepted it and worked toward approval in the next cycle.) Please don't let them carry this childish ongoing tantrum onto Wikipedia, or use Wikipedia as their propaganda pulpit for a story that is of interest to a handful of people in the frat at most. The rest of us are tired of this. Helander77 ( talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Sigma Moo vandalism again -- this seems clearly to be in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Again, this is a small student group trying to get publicity for an issue decided over a year ago, which Wikipedia administrators agreed was old news. If every student group who had a beef with every university posted their dirty laundry on Wikipedia, the general public would be parsing through reams of propaganda and opinion to get to the general info about the school. It does not belong on a general information page. Helander77 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed the frat-boy vandalism AGAIN, as seems to be a continuing problem here. As post says above, this clearly is in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and does not belong on a general information page about the university. Go be juvenile on your own page. Sekhmet07 ( talk) 19:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen, people: The fraternity "controversy" is OLD NEWS. It doesn't belong on the Chapman page two years after it all went down. As a comparison, the UCLA_Taser_incident doesn't appear anywhere on the UCLA page, and it was a WAY bigger deal than this fraternity deal. It's time for it to go. BlackberryLaw ( talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What? Jelena Jensen, who graduated MCL citation needed, is not a notable alumna? What about WP:NOTCENSORED? (And I'm a Chapman alum.) -- S. Rich ( talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Four attempts were made to remove Jelena Jensen from the list of notable alumni today. The attempts were made by four different single-purpose accounts:
Note that C23yesser admitted to a conflict of interest with the university in his/her edit summary.
Now, there's discussion above ( #Jelena Jensen deletion) that shows that there is not consensus to remove Jensen from the article. There are sources in Jensen's article to corroborate her attendance of the university, and she still meets the guidelines for the notable alumni list as mentioned in the first discussion.
If an editor (or editors, but I highly suspect it's a single editor, or a single campaign, behind the accounts above) has a concern about Jensen's inclusion, I invite them to discuss the matter here. Creating a string of accounts, each of which does little more than remove Jensen from the list, does nothing to boost the cause—and may, in the long run, do more to keep her listed in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Brandman University shouldn't really redirect to Chapman University since it is a separate entity. Does anyone know how to remove the redirect so a new page can be created?
Jahoerbelt ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Jaime
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Chapman 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we include the biannual world famous "undie run"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.140.32 ( talk) 01:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Chapman 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)