![]() | 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 |
Why isnt this guy under the list for famous alumni? I consider assassinating the king of Saudi Arabia a pretty notable act.
Skew-T argued that the sources I cited did not indicate that SFSU paid for the investigation into the Akom controversy. However, page 5 of the investigative report reads:
"The Hon. Willie L. Brown is the former Mayor of San Francisco and Speaker of the California Assembly. Louise H. Renne is the former City Attorney of San Francisco. The investigators assigned to the task were Nikki Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP and George M. Cothran, a licensed private investigator employed by the same law firm. Ms. Hall and Mr. Cothran reported to Ms. Renne and Mr. Brown throughout their investigation."
The administration "commissioned" an investigation by two private citizens and a private law firm that does not work for free. Lets use some logical deduction here:
1) Private law firms do not work for free.
2) Work was done on behalf of the SFSU administration.
3) The work of this private firm is cited in the report as the material basis of this investigation.
What more evidence is needed to confirm that the SFSU administration paid for the investigation? It may Now that I have exposed this quote on the talk page of this article, I would not be surprised if that paragraph suddenly goes "missing" from the official PDF file on the University's web site.
R33tr33t 13:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
SFSU is a very peculiar place with a very violent and corrupt history that embarrasses the administration, which habitually covers up embarrassing issues. It does appear that the university is reverting this page to an NPOV version reflecting an official propaganda line.
The previous version attempted to color the 2002 pogrom as a "he said/she said" dispute between "pro-Israel" demonstrators and "pro-Palestinians". It wasn't -- it was an attack against a peace demonstration by the Hillel Jewish student group by the Palestinian students association. The Jews were held captive against a building wall. There is no question of who did what, and that the campus police did not interfere. The events were widely covered in the national press, and the university was forced to apologize.
The 60's corruption scandals are well documented and available to anyone with access to microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle, or other contemporary newspapers, especially during Feb. 69, when the associated students was shut down by the state attorney general (NOT Ronald Reagan.
The university persists in referring to the 60's violence as a "student strike" -- but no strike vote was ever held and a 90 percent majority of the students were opposed. I suggest anyone who disputes this to go to the university library and read contemporary issues of the Daily Gater and the Phoenix (published by the Journalism department during semesters when corrupt student leaders controled the Gater and censored coverage).
I urge university spokesmen and extremist professors to stop reverting this page into propaganda. Scott Adler 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break. "Pogrom (from Russian: погром; from "громить" IPA: [grʌˈmitʲ]- to wreak havoc, to demolish violently) is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre."
Yes, there was a near-riot, but to call it a pogrom demeans the people who died in them. The account of the incident that appears here comes from news reports published in a major San Francisco newspaper. Ckessler 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-- fpo 20:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
This school has the reputation of harboring more anti Judaism anti Israeli harrassment than any other school in the country. When I have the time this will be added to the article. Incorrect 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the following: SFSU has the reputation of being militantly pro Palestinian anti Israeli anti Jewish - this should be mentioned. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12354 Further indication that USF is a hot bed of anti semitism: http://www.jr.co.il/articles/sf-univ.txt Incorrect 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Incorrect 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please update the university logo? The seal on the main wiki page is still used for formal occasions, but the standard new logo should also be posted. Akit 07:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Semitic means Arabic. How can a Palestinian support group be labelled anti Semitic for taking actions against the Israeli Support group who are also Semitic. The label anti Semite is used incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial king ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
SI Hayakawa was PRESIDENT of SFSC, not chancellor, as a previous editor thought, and there was no "strike" in 1968 -- if you claim otherwise, please cite the date of the strike vote and the number of students participating.
There wasn't one. There were riots called by a group of extremist organizations with their own set of "non-negotiable demands". And as the principle target of the "strikers" were the students themselves -- beatings, bombs in the dorm, the visual arts building, etc. -- how could the students be striking?
Anyone who was there remembers this, unless you were one of "The Students" (with capital letters) e.g. the ten percent minority who voted for the radical party and supported the radicals' behaviors. They also remember what happened when the illegal funding dried up -- it all ended. Scott Adler 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the university's 100 year history online [1] and I do agree that Hayakawa is president and as noted officially by the University. Could it be please noted in the wiki that the events of the student action was from 1968-1969 (it only mentions the late 60s)?
Also, the university recognizes that the events during this period is a "strike." In particular: Hayakawa pulled the cables in front of striking students, and the AFT striked and joined the picket line.
Lastly, it is possible that the wiki can recognize that the strike/student action led to the creation of the School (now College) of Ethnic Studies that started running in the Fall of 1969? [2] Thanks. Akit 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:CSU.PNG 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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
hello == people that are looking at this!!!!! www.yahoo.com type in san francisco state and will take you to some website thank you for reading this late —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.151.196 ( talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see a large section about notable alumni (with lots of red links), but no section about notable faculty. Certainly, there must be some notable SFSU faculty. Any suggestions? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
if anyone knows any notable faculty please start a notable faculty section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.193.214 ( talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dan Q. Posin was a notable faculty member. He was professor of physics at SFSU for many years and a noted science educator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan500 ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Usually a college this old and big will have a billion dollars worth of non-transferable endowments collected. They have almost nothing? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.62.200 ( talk) 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE! |
-- Dabackgammonator ( talk) 05:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
How about a section listing past presidents of SFSC and SFSU and the dates of their administrations? That's a standard element for college and university articles in Wikipedia. Dwalls ( talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether you want to argue about whether it was a strike or not, this page should link to an entry detailing the demands and events of that year. It's hard to believe there's no one with expertise on this subject would couldn't write an entry. Here's a documentary--a compilation of news clips and other film of the demonstrations. http://blip.tv/laborvideo/the-turning-point-sf-state-68-strike-3641996 Eperotao ( talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
San Francisco State 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on San Francisco State 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu/cds_air/sites/wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu.cds_air/files/CDS_2013-2014_0.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu/cds_air/sites/wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu.cds_air/files/CDS_2012-2013.pdfWhen 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) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on San Francisco State 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) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Victor De Scribe has begun an edit war to ensure that his preferred version of the "Controversies" section remains in this article. I previously removed two "controversies" that don't seem noteworthy - a "near-riot" and an altercation between 2 students. Victor has not restored those two paragraphs so I assume that we're in agreement about those not being material we should include.
-- In response to above, I don't believe I started an edit war but apparently have found myself in one. It began when a large pre-existing section was deleted. I restored the Controversy section as it has been in place for several years on this page and is consistent with San Francisco State's efforts to encourage social discourse and social justice. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The entire sections and content you removed could be included in History but then the section should reference that the complete content has been MOVED and allow all authors and editors to UPDATE the moved content consistent with the History section- in and of itself, this I think is more kludgey and its not clear its beneficial - the short term result is the content has been destroyed by your actions. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe the section on the student dispute should have been removed but could not restore the content at the time as the page appeared to be locked and the removed content did not appear in Undo because of the large volume of changes made when we were both editing at the same time it appears. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) ---
I also removed one "controversy" that has scant sourcing: an accusation that the university was hacked by Russians. Only one of the three cited sources even mentions this university and it only repeats the claim made by one person that there is evidence that a Russian IP address was involved. Victor originally added this section and has begun an edit war to retain this information after I removed for being poorly supported by the cited references. As currently written, it includes a lot of original research and sources that don't make any mention of this controversy or even this institution. Without better sourcing, this doesn't seem like something we can or should include.
-- There are multiple sources mentioned in the reference articles from local San Francisco newspaper sources such as the San Francisco Examiner as well as a CNN interview and other historical studies regarding Russian activity targeting Universities in the timeframe. Additional references including student newspaper reports and court references could not be added because the section was deleted after it was created. Checking timestamps, it appears highly improbable you could have reviewed all the referential content from the first publish event to your rapid deletion. This therefore looks like an attempt to silence contributors early at content creation and inception rather than making supportive edits and reasonable modifications to broadly sourced content. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
--
Victor is also insisting that the controversies be included in their own stand-alone section instead of being integrated into the university's broader history. His attempt to enforce that preference - a preference that some editors, including me, believe is inherently biased - has resulted in this article mentioning some of these events twice, once in the history section and once in the controversies section. Not only is it POV to present controversies alone in a separate section without any connection to the subject's larger history and context, it's also sloppy and lazy.
-- Victor is not insisting on this-never says it and never claims it. Removal of an entire section though is highly suspect. As indicated above, the section has been standalone for rather a long time (several years.) It was created by other authors. Editing therefore began and has continued in this section for several years for varied content and because of a differing perspectives that don't allow a good fit for the content in the History section. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
One could equally say you are biased by deciding to remove it when it has been a valid section created by others- using the terms "sloppy and lazy" seems to be an attempt to discredit and dismiss everyone who previously created and contributed to this section rather than to supply something relevant and meaningful, to explain with superior and rationale logic rather than name calling, why it should be deleted. It is not sloppy and lazy given the content likely would have never existed if someone hadn't created the Controversy section is the first place some time ago. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --
I agree that some of these events should be mentioned in this article. They need to be included in appropriate sections where they're placed into context for readers, not a biased and lazy stand-alone section that implies that these incidents occurred without any context, development, or connection to anything else. These events certainly don't need to be fully described in multiple section. And Victor definitely shouldn't be edit warring over this material. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
-- I think it can logically be agreed that they don't need to be in multiple sections. If they were woven into the History section however they need a different type of editing and content that emphasizes a linkage with more extensive historical events - you actually removed references including Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Russian hacking activity though which would have supported a historical perspective. These were strong historical references for time and events based context- therefore your actions don't appear consistent with your stated arguments. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to move all of the section and content into History and invite all the past authors to update their sections for references that place the events in historical content, that might work and would be fair. Until done however, consistent with past edits, they should remain in the original Controversy section (which was not created by Victor but by other authors who apparently haven't taken the time yet to dispute this blanket deletion of content and the section in which the content originally appeared.) Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Universities have controversy and it leads to often better outcomes for such content to be highlighted. I think the section should remain as well as all the original entries until prior authors can move their content with new references for the content to fit in History. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Your modifications suggested for richer external sourcing are useful and the content has been updated and was attempted to be updated with more sources when the entire content was deleted. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
As emphasized previously, removing entire sections and content again makes it look like one has another agenda- perhaps working for University PR, aligned politically with Trump, foreign state actors, or some other organization interested in a reduced narrative rather than content and references that open minds up to thought and additional inquiry. Dangerous that be - I think on this we can agree. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --
-- How is the deletion of an entire set of content by others ok? This isn't a beef- there are multiple entries regarding press reports of Russian hacking activity. If the sections and content weren't continually deleted they could be updated with additional references. What constitutes "significant coverage" and how are the SF Examiner and CNN not valid sources? I'd love to hear that logic. (Is this because Jim Acosta was kicked out of the White House by Trump and therefore CNN is no longer a valid new source for some people?) Victor De Scribe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The current "History" section looks poor compared to SFSU's other peer institutions' articles. Several of the points listed used to belong in a "Controversies" section, and appropriately so. The "History" section should be an overall, broad history of the school, listing important milestones that affected everyone, not for listing every point of contention that has arisen in its history. The 1968-69 student strike remains the defining event in the history of SFSU, so this should be included in the "History" section. But certain other points (Malcolm X painting, Science Building contamination, and the temporary anti-Jewish group policies) are peripheral in nature and should be moved to a "Controversies" section, where they will still be available for people to read. I suggest seeing San Diego State's article as an example. They have an "Incidents" section that contains important controversial incidents, but they are not listed in the school's overall "History" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhurst1945 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, October 15, 2019 (UTC)
Can the editor who objects to the image of the Malcolm X mural please explain to us why you object to it and why you keep removing it from this article with no explanation whatsoever? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 05:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
You are the one trying to make a political point, face the facts. You should have shame. Hmm i don't think that for a lot of people *that* image stands for the University. Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. #Get a real education. 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 ( talk) 02:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 ( talk) 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:3466:31EC:4BB6:4AB2 ( talk)
...Oh well keep the painting then by all "means." Trump is still president, there is no problem. There is no accounting for taste and time is valuable. Go state. 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:2C3D:B399:C6C1:C8D8 ( talk)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This university has a fairly solid reputation as the West Coast academic center for hatred of Jews, with student misbehavior followed by at-best tepid administrator responses again and again (as seen most recently in the Leila Khaled affair), and this should be mentioned on the article. It would be easy to document a number of incidents. If it can be documented that its reputation is not entirely deserved, then that should be mentioned too. But the issue should not be completely left off the article (compare the coverage of similar issues on the University of California, Irvine article)... AnonMoos ( talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if my recent addition re: Riley Gaines will remain on the article, but if it does, the last four events listed in History would be more accurately categorized as controversies. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges
![]() | 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 |
Why isnt this guy under the list for famous alumni? I consider assassinating the king of Saudi Arabia a pretty notable act.
Skew-T argued that the sources I cited did not indicate that SFSU paid for the investigation into the Akom controversy. However, page 5 of the investigative report reads:
"The Hon. Willie L. Brown is the former Mayor of San Francisco and Speaker of the California Assembly. Louise H. Renne is the former City Attorney of San Francisco. The investigators assigned to the task were Nikki Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP and George M. Cothran, a licensed private investigator employed by the same law firm. Ms. Hall and Mr. Cothran reported to Ms. Renne and Mr. Brown throughout their investigation."
The administration "commissioned" an investigation by two private citizens and a private law firm that does not work for free. Lets use some logical deduction here:
1) Private law firms do not work for free.
2) Work was done on behalf of the SFSU administration.
3) The work of this private firm is cited in the report as the material basis of this investigation.
What more evidence is needed to confirm that the SFSU administration paid for the investigation? It may Now that I have exposed this quote on the talk page of this article, I would not be surprised if that paragraph suddenly goes "missing" from the official PDF file on the University's web site.
R33tr33t 13:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
SFSU is a very peculiar place with a very violent and corrupt history that embarrasses the administration, which habitually covers up embarrassing issues. It does appear that the university is reverting this page to an NPOV version reflecting an official propaganda line.
The previous version attempted to color the 2002 pogrom as a "he said/she said" dispute between "pro-Israel" demonstrators and "pro-Palestinians". It wasn't -- it was an attack against a peace demonstration by the Hillel Jewish student group by the Palestinian students association. The Jews were held captive against a building wall. There is no question of who did what, and that the campus police did not interfere. The events were widely covered in the national press, and the university was forced to apologize.
The 60's corruption scandals are well documented and available to anyone with access to microfilm of the San Francisco Chronicle, or other contemporary newspapers, especially during Feb. 69, when the associated students was shut down by the state attorney general (NOT Ronald Reagan.
The university persists in referring to the 60's violence as a "student strike" -- but no strike vote was ever held and a 90 percent majority of the students were opposed. I suggest anyone who disputes this to go to the university library and read contemporary issues of the Daily Gater and the Phoenix (published by the Journalism department during semesters when corrupt student leaders controled the Gater and censored coverage).
I urge university spokesmen and extremist professors to stop reverting this page into propaganda. Scott Adler 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break. "Pogrom (from Russian: погром; from "громить" IPA: [grʌˈmitʲ]- to wreak havoc, to demolish violently) is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre."
Yes, there was a near-riot, but to call it a pogrom demeans the people who died in them. The account of the incident that appears here comes from news reports published in a major San Francisco newspaper. Ckessler 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-- fpo 20:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
This school has the reputation of harboring more anti Judaism anti Israeli harrassment than any other school in the country. When I have the time this will be added to the article. Incorrect 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the following: SFSU has the reputation of being militantly pro Palestinian anti Israeli anti Jewish - this should be mentioned. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12354 Further indication that USF is a hot bed of anti semitism: http://www.jr.co.il/articles/sf-univ.txt Incorrect 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Incorrect 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please update the university logo? The seal on the main wiki page is still used for formal occasions, but the standard new logo should also be posted. Akit 07:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Semitic means Arabic. How can a Palestinian support group be labelled anti Semitic for taking actions against the Israeli Support group who are also Semitic. The label anti Semite is used incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martial king ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
SI Hayakawa was PRESIDENT of SFSC, not chancellor, as a previous editor thought, and there was no "strike" in 1968 -- if you claim otherwise, please cite the date of the strike vote and the number of students participating.
There wasn't one. There were riots called by a group of extremist organizations with their own set of "non-negotiable demands". And as the principle target of the "strikers" were the students themselves -- beatings, bombs in the dorm, the visual arts building, etc. -- how could the students be striking?
Anyone who was there remembers this, unless you were one of "The Students" (with capital letters) e.g. the ten percent minority who voted for the radical party and supported the radicals' behaviors. They also remember what happened when the illegal funding dried up -- it all ended. Scott Adler 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the university's 100 year history online [1] and I do agree that Hayakawa is president and as noted officially by the University. Could it be please noted in the wiki that the events of the student action was from 1968-1969 (it only mentions the late 60s)?
Also, the university recognizes that the events during this period is a "strike." In particular: Hayakawa pulled the cables in front of striking students, and the AFT striked and joined the picket line.
Lastly, it is possible that the wiki can recognize that the strike/student action led to the creation of the School (now College) of Ethnic Studies that started running in the Fall of 1969? [2] Thanks. Akit 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:CSU.PNG 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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
hello == people that are looking at this!!!!! www.yahoo.com type in san francisco state and will take you to some website thank you for reading this late —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.151.196 ( talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see a large section about notable alumni (with lots of red links), but no section about notable faculty. Certainly, there must be some notable SFSU faculty. Any suggestions? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
if anyone knows any notable faculty please start a notable faculty section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.193.214 ( talk) 00:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dan Q. Posin was a notable faculty member. He was professor of physics at SFSU for many years and a noted science educator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan500 ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Usually a college this old and big will have a billion dollars worth of non-transferable endowments collected. They have almost nothing? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.62.200 ( talk) 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE! |
-- Dabackgammonator ( talk) 05:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
How about a section listing past presidents of SFSC and SFSU and the dates of their administrations? That's a standard element for college and university articles in Wikipedia. Dwalls ( talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether you want to argue about whether it was a strike or not, this page should link to an entry detailing the demands and events of that year. It's hard to believe there's no one with expertise on this subject would couldn't write an entry. Here's a documentary--a compilation of news clips and other film of the demonstrations. http://blip.tv/laborvideo/the-turning-point-sf-state-68-strike-3641996 Eperotao ( talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
San Francisco State 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on San Francisco State 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu/cds_air/sites/wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu.cds_air/files/CDS_2013-2014_0.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu/cds_air/sites/wcmdemo7.sfsu.edu.cds_air/files/CDS_2012-2013.pdfWhen 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) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on San Francisco State 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) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Victor De Scribe has begun an edit war to ensure that his preferred version of the "Controversies" section remains in this article. I previously removed two "controversies" that don't seem noteworthy - a "near-riot" and an altercation between 2 students. Victor has not restored those two paragraphs so I assume that we're in agreement about those not being material we should include.
-- In response to above, I don't believe I started an edit war but apparently have found myself in one. It began when a large pre-existing section was deleted. I restored the Controversy section as it has been in place for several years on this page and is consistent with San Francisco State's efforts to encourage social discourse and social justice. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The entire sections and content you removed could be included in History but then the section should reference that the complete content has been MOVED and allow all authors and editors to UPDATE the moved content consistent with the History section- in and of itself, this I think is more kludgey and its not clear its beneficial - the short term result is the content has been destroyed by your actions. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe the section on the student dispute should have been removed but could not restore the content at the time as the page appeared to be locked and the removed content did not appear in Undo because of the large volume of changes made when we were both editing at the same time it appears. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) ---
I also removed one "controversy" that has scant sourcing: an accusation that the university was hacked by Russians. Only one of the three cited sources even mentions this university and it only repeats the claim made by one person that there is evidence that a Russian IP address was involved. Victor originally added this section and has begun an edit war to retain this information after I removed for being poorly supported by the cited references. As currently written, it includes a lot of original research and sources that don't make any mention of this controversy or even this institution. Without better sourcing, this doesn't seem like something we can or should include.
-- There are multiple sources mentioned in the reference articles from local San Francisco newspaper sources such as the San Francisco Examiner as well as a CNN interview and other historical studies regarding Russian activity targeting Universities in the timeframe. Additional references including student newspaper reports and court references could not be added because the section was deleted after it was created. Checking timestamps, it appears highly improbable you could have reviewed all the referential content from the first publish event to your rapid deletion. This therefore looks like an attempt to silence contributors early at content creation and inception rather than making supportive edits and reasonable modifications to broadly sourced content. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
--
Victor is also insisting that the controversies be included in their own stand-alone section instead of being integrated into the university's broader history. His attempt to enforce that preference - a preference that some editors, including me, believe is inherently biased - has resulted in this article mentioning some of these events twice, once in the history section and once in the controversies section. Not only is it POV to present controversies alone in a separate section without any connection to the subject's larger history and context, it's also sloppy and lazy.
-- Victor is not insisting on this-never says it and never claims it. Removal of an entire section though is highly suspect. As indicated above, the section has been standalone for rather a long time (several years.) It was created by other authors. Editing therefore began and has continued in this section for several years for varied content and because of a differing perspectives that don't allow a good fit for the content in the History section. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
One could equally say you are biased by deciding to remove it when it has been a valid section created by others- using the terms "sloppy and lazy" seems to be an attempt to discredit and dismiss everyone who previously created and contributed to this section rather than to supply something relevant and meaningful, to explain with superior and rationale logic rather than name calling, why it should be deleted. It is not sloppy and lazy given the content likely would have never existed if someone hadn't created the Controversy section is the first place some time ago. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --
I agree that some of these events should be mentioned in this article. They need to be included in appropriate sections where they're placed into context for readers, not a biased and lazy stand-alone section that implies that these incidents occurred without any context, development, or connection to anything else. These events certainly don't need to be fully described in multiple section. And Victor definitely shouldn't be edit warring over this material. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
-- I think it can logically be agreed that they don't need to be in multiple sections. If they were woven into the History section however they need a different type of editing and content that emphasizes a linkage with more extensive historical events - you actually removed references including Senate Intelligence Committee reports on Russian hacking activity though which would have supported a historical perspective. These were strong historical references for time and events based context- therefore your actions don't appear consistent with your stated arguments. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to move all of the section and content into History and invite all the past authors to update their sections for references that place the events in historical content, that might work and would be fair. Until done however, consistent with past edits, they should remain in the original Controversy section (which was not created by Victor but by other authors who apparently haven't taken the time yet to dispute this blanket deletion of content and the section in which the content originally appeared.) Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Universities have controversy and it leads to often better outcomes for such content to be highlighted. I think the section should remain as well as all the original entries until prior authors can move their content with new references for the content to fit in History. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Your modifications suggested for richer external sourcing are useful and the content has been updated and was attempted to be updated with more sources when the entire content was deleted. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
As emphasized previously, removing entire sections and content again makes it look like one has another agenda- perhaps working for University PR, aligned politically with Trump, foreign state actors, or some other organization interested in a reduced narrative rather than content and references that open minds up to thought and additional inquiry. Dangerous that be - I think on this we can agree. Victor De Scribe ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --
-- How is the deletion of an entire set of content by others ok? This isn't a beef- there are multiple entries regarding press reports of Russian hacking activity. If the sections and content weren't continually deleted they could be updated with additional references. What constitutes "significant coverage" and how are the SF Examiner and CNN not valid sources? I'd love to hear that logic. (Is this because Jim Acosta was kicked out of the White House by Trump and therefore CNN is no longer a valid new source for some people?) Victor De Scribe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The current "History" section looks poor compared to SFSU's other peer institutions' articles. Several of the points listed used to belong in a "Controversies" section, and appropriately so. The "History" section should be an overall, broad history of the school, listing important milestones that affected everyone, not for listing every point of contention that has arisen in its history. The 1968-69 student strike remains the defining event in the history of SFSU, so this should be included in the "History" section. But certain other points (Malcolm X painting, Science Building contamination, and the temporary anti-Jewish group policies) are peripheral in nature and should be moved to a "Controversies" section, where they will still be available for people to read. I suggest seeing San Diego State's article as an example. They have an "Incidents" section that contains important controversial incidents, but they are not listed in the school's overall "History" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhurst1945 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, October 15, 2019 (UTC)
Can the editor who objects to the image of the Malcolm X mural please explain to us why you object to it and why you keep removing it from this article with no explanation whatsoever? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 05:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
You are the one trying to make a political point, face the facts. You should have shame. Hmm i don't think that for a lot of people *that* image stands for the University. Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. #Get a real education. 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 ( talk) 02:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:E051:971C:65A8:CD27 ( talk) 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:3466:31EC:4BB6:4AB2 ( talk)
...Oh well keep the painting then by all "means." Trump is still president, there is no problem. There is no accounting for taste and time is valuable. Go state. 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:2C3D:B399:C6C1:C8D8 ( talk)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This university has a fairly solid reputation as the West Coast academic center for hatred of Jews, with student misbehavior followed by at-best tepid administrator responses again and again (as seen most recently in the Leila Khaled affair), and this should be mentioned on the article. It would be easy to document a number of incidents. If it can be documented that its reputation is not entirely deserved, then that should be mentioned too. But the issue should not be completely left off the article (compare the coverage of similar issues on the University of California, Irvine article)... AnonMoos ( talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if my recent addition re: Riley Gaines will remain on the article, but if it does, the last four events listed in History would be more accurately categorized as controversies. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges