Talk:Emory University/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Logo 2 Per my recent edit 3 Defining Notable Faculty and Alumni 4 This talk page is getting long, what's the rule for "clearing out" old discussions? 5 Salman Rushdie

Logo

Listen, I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't understand why the proper logo isn't being used in the article. Look at the logos from schools like Upenn, Yale, University of Chicago, etc. and you'll see that they all use the crest from their school and not some symbol or special font with the name as is the case currently at the Emory article. They all have a legitimate fair use claim for the crest and whether the symbol is widely used in documentation is not an issue. The University crest is supposed to be used for all University articles on Wikipedia and it falls under fair use. Emory's statement as to usage on their page doesn't matter. Coca-Cola probably doesn't give us permission to use their logo but we do legally under a fair use claim anyway. Emory isn't special and we should use the same format all other schools abide by on Wikipedia. Nrbelex ^(talk) 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think the crest is the proper logo? It's not what appears on university correspondence or the web site -- or anything, really. Selecting a logo merely because it's more like the logos used in other similar Wikipedia articles is a bizarre way to select the proper image. The logos we use in all the other articles you list above are the logos that those organizations actually use.

So, if you believe the correct image for this article is the crest, which has been all but phased out by the organization it represents, I'd really like to hear why. "It's more like the logos used on other university articles" isn't terribly persuasive. Georgia State University's logo looks little like the crests you described above. The University of Georgia also has a simple line drawing with no traditional shield and motto. Perhaps you have made an unwarranted assumption about university logos and how they should appear based on an insufficiently large sample of schools. —ptk✰fgs 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Emory uses the Infobox University template to layout what should be included and where. In the example provided on the page there, the "Seal of Lund University" is used for the article's image within the infobox. Since that template is what all university articles are supposed to abide by, it only seems appropriate to have Emory follow along and use their seal. As a student of Emory, I can say with complete confidence that the logo in question is used, granted not as frequently as the the other. When it is used, it's on official documents and not for less formal use, which the current logo is used for. The official "Honor Code of Emory College" (which I'm holding in my hand) is adorned with the logo in question as an example of official usage (and a fairly common document at that). Even if some university articles use less elaborate logos, a quick scan of the "University Logos" category will clearly show that many if not most use the more formal seal or crest, especially if they are a larger institution like Emory. Nrbelex ^(talk) 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The logo used here still remains the one most commonly used by the university. Yes, I understand that this is a different style from the logos used most commonly by other universities, and that the crest is more similar to those. So far, we only have one example of a document that uses the crest. That we can do a thing does not mean we must do it, and I still don't see what the compelling reason is to use a less common logo. —ptk✰fgs 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More critically, Emory has published guidelines for the use of the seal and crest that restrict them to official use only. Please tell me what had changed since this was discussed previously, as we've already been through this and determined use of the seal was inappropriate. (It's even less appropriate now, as Wikipedia is placing more emphasis on making sure free images are used whenever possible, and a restricted image headed very much away from free.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, if you honestly believe Emory's "published guidelines" have any effect on our legal right to use the crest versus the current symbol, you need to refresh yourself on fair use and in what conditions it applies. Nrbelex ^(talk) 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, regarding the Coca-Cola logo argument, Coke protects its interests in its logo with a trademark (and copyright) but does not tacitly forbid its reproduction. Emory does forbid reproduction of the seal: "Reproduction of the official seal is not permitted in any form unless specifically authorized by the Office of Brand Management or the Office of the Secretary." Second, regarding the published guidelines: if Emory maintains such strict rules on usage of the seal to ensure that it appears in limited context, does it not make sense that they do so to preserve the value of the seal? Is it not then possible that the value of the seal is diminished if we use it on the Wikipedia? If so, then using the image on Wikipedia is not fair use. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Every logo owner protects its interests using a document like Emory's identity guidelines. Those don't apply to us because our use of the logos is a fair use, for identification and commentary on the organization they identify, not one subject to agreement with Emory. An unfair use of the crest would be, for example, a campus organization placing it on its publications to imply a closer relationship with the university than actually exists -- this would dilute the mark.

Our use of the crest need not be influenced by the identity guidelines. Those guidelines do not apply to us; our use is a fair use and not subject to them.

The crest, however, is not the logo most commonly used by the organization. We should select one that is. And we have; that's what's in the article now. —ptk✰fgs 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

n.b. there is a long discussion on a similar issue at Talk:Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod/Archive_2#Copyright:_Fair_Use. The outcome of that discussion was, as one would reasonably expect, that the organization's restrictions on use of the logo simply do not apply to Wikipedia because its use of the logo is under a fair use claim, not one subject to restriction by the mark owner.

If you truly believe that Emory's visual identity guidelines on the use of logos apply to Wikipedia, then please, by all means, go find a lawyer immediately to comment on this issue. But don't come back claiming that those restrictions apply to us until you can find legal advice concurring with that. It's a waste of our time and it runs absolutely counter to the common practice on Wikipedia of simply grabbing and using logos when we have a valid fair use claim.

The visual identity guidelines are intended to constrain parties related to the university in an attempt to create a coherent visual branding presence. That doesn't concern us. We should simply find the most appropriate logo for the organization and use that in the article. —ptk✰fgs 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of why I bring up the visual identity guidelines is that those same guidelines recommend the use of the Emory Shield as the preferred identifying mark. I support use of the shield, as is the current situation, to identify the school. I think we are absolutely within the bounds of fair use to use that image. I object to use of the seal, mainly on the grounds that it is not the common identifier of the school, and also because by way of the visual identity guidelines, the university indicates a preference not to use the seal widely.

I think the situation is analogous to that in the Phi Gamma Delta article. That organization requests very restricted usage of its Greek-letter representation and recommends the use of English-word spellings or "Fiji." The Wikipedia article honors those rules. Emory requests the seal to be used in a limited context and recommends the usage of the shield in the general context. I do not think we are required to honor the restrictions, but I think it is respectful to follow their preferences. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we went down the "respect their preferences" road at LCMS as well. If Wikipedia were to make a habit of respecting the arbitrary preferences of every content owner then we would never make a fair use claim on anything. Fair use is something that withers on the vine if you don't use it. Our only concern should be to find the most representative logo and use it in the article, irrespective of the organization's inapplicable guidelines for how to use it. In this case, that's coincidentally the one which the university recommends for internal publications. In practice we should opt for the seal that's in the article because it's the one that's almost universally used to identify the organization in its own publications. —ptk✰fgs 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per my recent edit

I recently reverted a user's edits on this page [1] because I had believed they were vandalous edits. In retrospect, I now see these edits as unverifiable and without reliable sources (as well as unexplained content removals). If someone can provide the correct information that shows that I was wrong in reverting the edits, then by all means add the information back. However, the statement about the alcohol poisoning and the "top party school" feels unencyclopedic and not necessary for inclusion in the article (as it is merely a single incident relating to the paragraph). Ryūlóng 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my edit. I reverted because of vandalism made to this page, and I checked the user's contributions in the article. I will reintroduce the information. Ryūlóng 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Defining Notable Faculty and Alumni

I'm not sure if there are any clear criteria as to what defines "notable" for either faculty or alumni. There does seem to be some back-and-forth about folks being added or removed. I think if folks decide to remove, they should post their reasons why. If folks decide to add someone, the reason should be clear either in the general news, via Google, via their Wikipedia entry, or via some URL that the contributor provides to make this contribution self-evident.

Thoughts? My primary concern is not having vandalism of this page, while at the same time avoid vanity additions as well. Wiki4fun 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Three points + a recommendation: 170.140.134.126 12:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Check out Harvard University and List_of_Harvard_University_people. what we all may be running into is the fact that "notable" is extremely subjective. For folks outside the United States, they may not care if someone played a leadership role in 9/11 whereas other folks not to interested in business may not care that someone was a CEO of a company with no other fame associated with that other than they did a job; for which they probably were highly paid.

2. Don't single out a specific person unless you apply the same rationale to all individuals. I've not seen anyone attempt to explain the rationale that includes all "notable faculty" or "notable alumni" -- saying someone is not "old" enough is subjective and prejudiced. If there was to be a rule, need something that can be demonstrated against everyone here but even then the contribution of what different people do to their local, national, and global communities is really subjective to each of us and hard to weigh.

3. Lastly, somewhat concerned we're using Google to judge people's notability, some people's jobs may create more or less Google hits. I happen to know that government workers cannot talk to the press during their work and may have other security clearance restrictions, whereas academics probably create a lot of news through the University's press office, and politicians + tv stars probably have people that they pay to issue "press releases" for them. So Google hits alone do not equal notability.

Since we cannot make another repeat deletion; that would violate Wikipedia's rule-of-three, I suggest we try to find a middle-ground solution. Harvard solved this by having a seperate page with List_of_Harvard_University_people, no "notable faculty" or "notable alumni" are cited on the Harvard University Wikipedia entry. I would recommend we move all Emory faculty + alumni to a similar List_of_Emory_University_people webpage, and use text similar to Harvard. 170.140.134.126 12:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly committed to keeping or removing any one entry in the list. I would say, however, that the lists are getting quite long. I think we should either pare them down, or do as you suggested and move them to a new article. —ptk✰fgs 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ptk and 170.140.134.126. I like the middle-ground solution. I'm sure we don't have all the famous Emory faculty and alumni here, only those who either (1) historians put them on, (2) they put themselves on, (3) friends put them on (or enemies took them off). I think Harvard has the right approach to separate the Emory University entry from the Emory faculty + alumni entry. Who wants to move them? I'm not a Wikipedia expert but could (ptk seems more skilled...) Wiki4fun 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is getting long, what's the rule for "clearing out" old discussions?

Simply that, any suggestions on a rule for "clearing out" old discussions? I'm wondering if some of the early discussions are still relevant, yet I don't want to incur vandalism flames if I delete them. Thoughts anyone? Wiki4fun 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We archive old discussions. I have archived the old discussions. —ptk✰fgs 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ptk, merci beaucoup! Wiki4fun 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't duplicate threads from the archive back into the talk page without good reason. It's confusing and creates a mess. The discussions I archived haven't been active in months (a month and five days, in the most recent case). This talk page is for discussing changes to the article, and the issues in those threads are resolved. There is no reason to clutter this page with them, especially for newcomers who are coming here to discuss changes to the article. —ptk✰fgs 16:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for archiving the old threads out. Yesterday, the threads were deleted but not archived, and that's why I restored them. Since there is now an archive page for them, they can be deleted from this page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie

Do we need this yet? While I would say the Wheel normally meets WP:RS, in this case they're citing an anonymous source.[2] —ptk✰fgs 16:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this better? Nrbelex ^(talk) 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better. —ptk✰fgs 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)