Talk:Georgetown University

Issues with this FA

There are some issues with this article:

• Unsourced content
• Some sandwiching of images and tables
• Dated content
• It may also be overly dependent on primary sources, but I'm not sure.

Those are the major issues. There're some other things, like repetitive citations in the lead, but they aren't pressing. ~ HAL333 18:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I pushed hard to get this to FA in 2007, and to keep it there for several years, but admit my involvement has tapered off over the last decade. I keep hoping another student, alum, or qualified editor will take up the project of keeping this article and subarticles up to date. I know Ergo Sum (talk · contribs) has done fantastic work on the president and Jesuit articles, and there may be some text and sources from those that overlaps and could help here. School articles will always have unsourced content, particularly with a student life section, but I'd say that's easier to remove without sacrificing the comprehensiveness of the article by-in-large. And primary sources are indeed an ongoing issue, many facts and figures have to come directly from branches of the school, but I think we'd rather have the info than not. When appropriate, it's fine to preface info as "According to the school..." to make it clear to readers it's a primary-sourced figure. I'd say the dated statement are in a way the most concerning to me, since they can kind of snowball when you realize how much of the article needs major prose rewrites because of the new data. I use a lot of Template:As of tags in the prose, so that can help identify facts tied to a date, just by searching {{As of in the edit window.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Something that I have long had on the back burner is doing a proper WP:FAR for this article, since it's been well over a decade since it went through its FAC. Patrickneil did a fantastic job with this article the first time around and has maintained it diligently, so I very much hope you will contribute your input at FAR; I know I'd definitely rely on it. I just don't have the bandwidth to dedicate a lot of time to wiki right now, but I will have more in August. If the status quo for this article can remain until then, that would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 14:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Postponing until next month sounds like a perfectly reasonable request to me. I do think it'd be nice to have an FAR, given how long it's been since the previous one and how much college articles change (they're not as stable as e.g. history articles). As WP:HED's roster of FAs dwindles, this article takes on more and more of a role as a showcase model, so it's important it be up to par. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum and Patrickneil: Just following up, any updates on preferences for scheduling the FAR? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with primary sources from the university when that information can't be sourced from anywhere else. But I think there are many cases where secondary sources could replace these. For example, I would replace the Hoya source which describes the crucufix additions that "attracted national attention". If that change did indeed attract national attemtion, I'm sure the NYT or Wapo covered it. ~ HAL333 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333, Sdkb, Patrickneil, ElCalle19, and Publius In The 21st Century: I am pinging you because you participated in the above discussion or made significant contributions to the article since Hal333 posted their notice. Have the above concerns been addressed, and does the article fulfill the FA criteria? If so, can you mark this as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A? If not, are you interested in making improvements to the article, or should we prepare this for FAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: It's funny you should post this just now, as I was literally in the middle of writing the FAR. Give me a few minutes and I'll have it up. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Greek life

@Brettoppenheimer: lists of Greek institutions are better placed on list pages, since their content relevance for an encyclopedia is marginal. Also, there is not enough reliable documentation about them. Most Wikipedia editors agree that rote listings of Greek institutions are not helpful if there is no sourcing from outside Georgetown's homepage or the fraternity's own circle. If you can prove that one or more of the Greek houses is significant, then pls do so, but for the most part, individual houses fall under WP:UNDUE. That is, they are not significant enough for an encyclopdia. Here is an example of the lists, which are more appropriate. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

generic subcategory called "events"

I changed the section to traditions, that corresponds better to its content, and deleted: Georgetown University hosts notable speakers each year, largely because of the success of the Georgetown Lecture Fund and the Office of Communications. These are frequently important heads of state who visit Georgetown while in the capital, as well as scholars, authors, U.S. politicians, global business leaders, and religious figures. Many prominent alumni are known to frequent the main campus. The Office of the President hosts numerous symposia on religious topics, such as Nostra aetate, Pacem in terris, and the Building Bridges Seminar. All of this detail is very generic for higher ed and not notable. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Alumni section ballooning again

Hi, I'm happy to chat about this. I last started a topic on this four years ago, but I suspect there's just something about the joy of itemizing famous people that will forever make this an issue. Listcruft is the term we use on Wikipedia to describe this issue, I'd also point to the term puffery as a problem this section can quickly run into. As I said four years ago, individuals should ideally be included as part of a larger statement about the university and its alumni, and not because they attended the school and later became famous. The example sentence I gave was "Georgetown's alumni include more [insert job] than any other university,[source] such as Dr. So-and-So..."[source]. So that the famous person isn't the subject of the sentence, but an example of a larger, longer term development which can be sourced with facts and figures. Individuals are, however, most welcome on the very good List of Georgetown University alumni article. Make sense?-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 18:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on reducing listcruft and puffery. I agree that we should include content about famous specializations at GU, and/or certain developments that lead to alumni doing something more than just "being successful after graduation." -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Please review how to manage "unsourced" material. (all of the claims from my edit are extensively documented on Wikipedia). WP guidelines do not support this removal, especially blanket removal. WP:NOCITE

• In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} tag against the added text.

Ihpkt (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Patrick, thanks for this.

I think we can safely say that we both feel alumni are an important part of the story of Georgetown, which I imagine means as much to you as it does to me. Georgetown has a very substantial history of alumni in the arts in ways that are both nationally significant and part of the unique history of the campus, and that has zero representation in the status quo of the article. That simply must be corrected. If we don't tell this part of the Georgetown story, what is the Hilltop? To me, it isn't where the endowment is ranked on a list, it isn't what percentage of alumni work on Wall Street, and it's definitely not just a raw number of how many alumni are national politicians. Those are facets, and they are well captured already.

The edits over the years have really gutted a serious discussion of student life on campus. Philodemic, Mask & Bauble, Nomadic Theater, The Hoya, GU Improv, The Corp are listed, rather than contextualized. Anyone unfamiliar with the school would have little notion of the unique undergraduate experience. Long term, I think that needs to be framed against the Greek life discussion, because that tension is what accurately captures that aspect of the undergraduate experience, and when I get some time I may peruse the Hoya for some articles documenting that culture. I digress.

The section on traditions has been gutted. I, for one, do not think the Wikipedia article should be a substitute for a student prospectus where demographic data is prioritized over the actual history and spirit of the campus.

With these most recent revisions, and with the pattern of edits on this article, so much of the unique character of the university has been omitted, and what I am specifically trying to restore is the part of the Georgetown story that pertains to its extensive cultural and artistic influence. If you read my contribution, I try to emphasize, where possible, the role of Georgetown in the careers of those I have mentioned:

Blatty's Exorcist is inseparable from Georgetown, not mentioned in the article as it stands. Only film shot on campus for a number of years, national sensations.

R. F. Kuang is one of the best-selling authors today, and she sold her first novel while at Georgetown, studying in the SFS. International relations and history are intimately woven through her novels, and clearly the Hilltop experience pertains to her career today.

Batmanglij, Marling, Cahill, Morrsion, etc. are working filmmakers who got their start in the Georgetown filmmaking community and have attributed their success to specific faculty member(s) from Georgetown. It's part of the story.

So who are the alumni that you take issue with being listed? Bradley Cooper?

"individuals should ideally be included as part of a larger statement about the university and its alumni"

Couldn't agree more! That's why I think it's important that individuals for whose careers Georgetown is an integral part of their story are represented in the alumni section. I have to say I think there's a lot of baby going out with the bathwater, and there is a reason the Wikipedia guidelines recommend strongly against the blanket revision that has been done on the page today. Additionally, I just find it curious what has been retained, given your comments. What I do take issue with regarding your framing is that if we only have alumni where dozens of others have done the same, all we're going to get is bankers, lawyers, consultants, and congressmen. That is no different from any other university.

Puffery — I really think you need to consult the article you're referencing because this is where I feel you are injecting your own opinions and it is simply not supported by established guidelines. Issues of puffery merit a very specific edit, and citing the top awards in a professional field is decisively NOT puffery. Being worried that a section may veer into puffery is also not proper grounds for a blanket deletion. So while you're at it, really recommend reviewing

I'm not sure if you read or edit much in the arts, but all of these careers were characterized in line. Perhaps characterizing the media companies as "most prominent," I could see an argument for a different characterization that could be quantified. However, words to watch/weasel words are problematic when they are not tied to well cited, specific accomplishments. Everyone in this section had specific and national qualifiers for notability.

Listcruft — If they were not notable people, this would apply. I think you should re-read this Wiki essay. Every single person mentioned meets standards for notability and would be included in other articles of this category. See Dartmouth, MIT, Yale, etc.

Length/brevity — I can't really respond to this without something more substantial than your personal preference to anchor to. The section as I edited it is not lengthy among articles in this category, and I would again encourage comparison with peers.

List of alumni — I think you'll find I've added a half dozen or so alumni to this list over the last few months. But lists are meant to be referenced, articles are meant to be read. The intent of my edit is to avoid the alumni section being a mere list of individuals. The alumni section of the main article should stand alone to characterize the spirit of what alumni are doing, and you cannot tell me that is better served by omitting alumni in the arts.

This is a part of a longer term effort I am trying to carry out regarding a few prominent faculty members in the English department.

Sorry so long, haven't had time to make it shorter, excuse any errata, etc. Ihpkt (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ihpkt, there is a lot in your comment above, so apologies if I'm not going to be able to specifically address each point. Generally speaking though, this is an encyclopedia article, so yes, it would and should prioritize citable information like demographic data over "the Georgetown story" or the "spirit of the campus." At WP:BOOSTERISM, editors working on university articles are advised to allow the facts to speak for themselves, while WP:UNIGUIDE advises editors that the alumni section should "give a sense" of the people associated with the school. And I think that, to follow those guides and keep the text tight and to the point, we really need to leave a lot of the naming of individuals to the List of Georgetown University alumni article, even if you think they're really important people. I'd also caution that other stuff existing is not a good argument for including similar text. Most university articles on Wikipedia are not concise, well written works unfortunately.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

From WP:UNIGUIDE:

"Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty)"

EGOT award wins and nominations, other awards considered the highest recognition in their respective fields, #1 New York Times best-selling books, founding national media companies, etc. all fit squarely in this category. They are objective, citable, and what I included. Citing specific accomplishments of alumni that reflect positively on the university is not boosterism, it's inevitable in a list of notable people (although by no means does the above wording require that all are positive, perhaps we could also include a number of alumni who do not enjoy a positive reputation but are nevertheless notable, that might solve this particular matter), and it's actually very explicitly supported and outlined in the policy you cite.

In the case of actual boosterism, blanket reversion is not even the indicated resolution, and on these grounds alone I should again reinstate my edit as written for other interested editors to refine, where specifically justified. Almost all of the text in question is a series of facts, so the burden is on you to show which language would be problematic, and you are certainly not justified in blanket reversion of a good faith edit. If you take issue with specific names or characterization of their accomplishments, I again implore you to answer with a constructive edit, but removing every single alumnus with a connection to the arts is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and it doesn't serve to "give a sense" of who the notable university alumni are, especially given the "highly significant accomplishments" listed in my edit.

So I guess the only real question to address is what level of personal achievement in the arts do you think merits inclusion in the main article? And on what set of guidelines or principles are you making that determination, specifically? If you don't have a specific answer for that and just want to see the alumni section cut down to Bill Clinton and a Citigroup employment data summary (an intent which is quite directly contradicted by the very NPOV essays you cite) I'm going to have to insist on deferring to the very clear WP editorial guidance on this matter, your personal preferences notwithstanding. Ihpkt (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The notable alumni section of this article is not intended to be a lengthy, detailed, or comprehensive list of notable alumni - that is List of Georgetown University alumni. WP:UNIGUIDE provides this guidance for these kinds of sections:

"[They] should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on."

Georgetown University certainly qualifies as a "very old, very large, or very prestigious school" so we should limit this section of the article to a list of very well-known persons with a narrative summary. If you'd like an example of how to do this well, King's College London is a Featured Article with a pretty good example of a well done of a section about notable alumni. ElKevbo (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, the King's College article does an excellent job of listing prominent individuals from across fields. As I have mentioned, I understand the main article section is not comprehensive, I am a regular reader and sometimes editor of the separate comprehensive list. My edit could hardly be characterized as an attempt at making the section comprehensive. Clearly there are diverging views on what the appropriate length is, I would posit approximately as long as King's College. It should certainly account for the same diversity of fields pursued by alumni.

I submit, for instance, that Bradley Cooper and R. F. Kuang are "very well-known persons" (with substantial citable accomplishments), while Charles Prince, nearly 20 years out of the Citigroup job, is not actually particularly notable by these standards. In none of this is the view supported that regards employment data being summarized as the telos of the alumni section.

I appreciate the reply and I hope we can come to a consensus about the specific level of accomplishment that would merit inclusion so that we can bring this alumni section more in line with FA in this category such as the one you have recommended. I doubt it will include everyone from my initial edit, but I'd be pretty shocked if the consensus were actually that zero of these names should be included.

Last addition, I think the photos the King's article uses really adds to the alumni section and Georgetown's would benefit from the same. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, but it does use them for significant and merited encyclopedic purposes, namely here illustrating the breadth of notable alumni. Ihpkt (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Billionaire alumni and other counted attributes

I see in the edit history we are running into another issue with alumni. I'm not of the mind that editors tallying things like number of billionaire alumni or number of heads of state constitutes a violation of WP:NOR but the lack of clear listing of these alumni as billionaires anywhere else, either centrally in a single source where they are identified as alumni, or in the excellent and very good List of Georgetown University alumni, means that we will continue to run into an issue of citing the claims as they are currently structured (the same problem exists for most other countable attributes such as Rhodes/Marshall/MacArthur/Pulitzer and other awards that we summarize in the current version of the alumni section and notable alumni information in the lead). Even the comprehensive and exhaustive list makes it difficult to account for these tallies, as their entry in the list will often only include some of the attributes which we may be interested in documenting and counting for summary in this article, so you can't even CTRL + F to count names of, e.g. billionaires (currently returns 3, one of which is just a title in a cited article, the other two listed as billionaires are Gracias and Eric Hotung, who is deceased and therefore not a "living billionaire" per the lead).

Additionally, I have to say that the pattern of reversions being justified by complete mischaracterizations of Wikipedia editorial guidelines does not bode well. As an example, the reversion removing Antonio Gracias from the tally and characterizing this as an issue of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is completely detached from WP:COI. Antonio Gracias either is or is not citable as a billionaire (he is), and either is or is not already accounted for in the count of 9 that was in the status quo of the article. None of this has anything to do with whether that editor has a conflict of interest regarding Gracias or anyone else, so please, if you are going to cite WP guidelines and essays, do ensure that they actually pertain to the editorial issue you are correcting.

This count is unfortunately poorly sourced as it stands, for reasons that I have outlined above and in the other alumni topic on this talk page. This article's alumni section is nearly alone among higher education articles in its approach, and even after several back and forth edits aimed to improve it, contains redundancies, questionable inclusions, glaring omissions, and information that is outside of the scope of recommendations made in WP:UNIGUIDE.

Later this week I will make another pass at fixing some of these issues. Ihpkt (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

One other issue I would raise as it pertains to the longer term is that lists (as opposed to the data cited in articles, which is a different matter) generally do not include inline citations, although this is of course welcomed and seems to be common among FA alumni sections.

However, the reason that lists do not typically use inline citations, especially individuals, is that the appropriate place for documentation of the claim is on the main article of the page that is hyperlinked. An editor who wishes to challenge the verifiability of a person on a list need only click the hyperlink to their main article to see that their education and accomplishments are extensively documented there, efforts which do not need to be repeated in lists. If the challenging editor is still adamant about the issue of verifiability and believes the material requires a source, the official recommendation is to attempt to add a citation (which should be easy enough given that the citation will usually be quite clear on the target page. Insisting on inline citations, perhaps even multiple, for each individual when not specifically required by editorial guidelines reduces the readability of the section.

I invite editors interested in this matter to read the following and add their perspective as it pertains to the state and future of the Georgetown main article:

WP:OVERKILL - Excessive citations can hinder readability and are not necessary for information that is not likely to be contested, especially when it is well documented elsewhere.

WP:WHEN - Not every instance of a claim requires a citation. Inline citations are required in specific circumstances that will only apply to certain alumni (while we should have respect for adding contentious material about living people, WP:BLP, reference to alumni status when said status is documented on that person's main article cannot possibly be construed as "contentious") this has been used as a pretext for removal of content that is actually well sourced and does not require an inline citation. Information, especially in lists, does not require a direct inline citation to be considered verifiable.

In any case, guidelines are pretty clear that outside of the instances where an inline citation is required, editors feeling that a source is required should attempt to verify the information before removing it. I don't think any editor of this article can credibly claim that alumni status is not easily verifiable, so using this as a pretext for removal of content that violates your personal preferences for what should be contained in the article is difficult to defend as a good faith edit.

Finally, since it has come up, I want to reiterate that puffery and boosterism pertain to the language used by editors to describe a subject, not the mere inclusion of verifiable information about an organization or a subject. It's not boosterism to say that an alumnus won a Nobel Prize, to use an example that unfortunately does not apply to this article. Here is the specific example of puffery used in the essay:

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it.

Peacock example:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".^[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.^[2]

An article suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or, if an editor is unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}.

Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. People responsible for "public spending" (the neutral term) can be loaded both ways, as 'tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" or "public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good'. Ihpkt (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As it pertains to this article being within accepted norms for articles of this category, (other stuff existing is not a good argument) I will leave you with this excerpt:

While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order to illustrate a more substantial argument; as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning. While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments.

At a certain point, we really must look at the very significant discrepancies between the state of this article and established principles and examples of quality such as WP:UNIGUIDE and featured articles in this category, which is not the same argument as "other stuff existing." Ihpkt (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have done an initial check to attempt to correct our issue with billionaire alumni.

The following are confirmed living billionaires that are graduates of Georgetown (have degrees):

Henri Beaufour, Antonio Gracias, Frank McCourt (executive), Ted Leonsis, Chris Sacca, Marcus Wallenberg, Jules Kroll, and David G. Bradley (the sources for Bradley are not high quality, but the sales of his investments over time support the conclusion that he is a billionaire) (total: 8)

Ömer Koç is a billionaire and studied at Georgetown, but transferred. I list this separately, but typically such former students are not excluded in alumni lists on Wikipedia. This would bring the total to 9.

August François von Finck (another graduate) is presumably the heir to the $8.8bn fortune his father left at the time of his death, I just can't find a specific high quality source confirming him individually as a billionaire currently, but it seems highly likely. This would bring the total to 10 if confirmed.

Eric Hotung and Charles Cawley are both graduates described as having been billionaires, but they are deceased. For some reason, the statistic is typically worded as "living" billionaires, and perhaps this convention should be interrogated in order to give a more holistic historical perspective. We do not count only living Rhodes Scholars, for instance.

Jim Kimsey is also described as a billionaire, but is in the category of being both deceased and having only spent a single term at Georgetown before transferring to West Point. Depending on consensus here, he may or may not be included.

Finally, Ralph V. Whitworth may or may not have been a billionaire. He is deceased. Honorable mention to Thomas E. Leavey, whose philanthropy would indicate that he probably was a billionaire, although of course also deceased.

So the tally depends on what is an alumnus, and whether someone doesn't count because they died. My view is that this is not a horse race and the alumni section would be better served by identifying individual alumni and summarizing their accomplishments. Whether the tally is 8, 10, or 15 depends on a consensus not yet established. Ihpkt (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As a side note, I noticed that the alumnus in question in this ongoing edit war would only redirect to DOGE, and decided that he had sufficient individual notability to justify a main article. So anyone with an interest or aware of citable information to add regarding him, please help me contribute to Antonio Gracias. Thank you. Ihpkt (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

For Marshall Scholarships, the article gives the count at 46. The Marshall website contains a record of undergraduate institutions, the report "US Institutions that have received Marshall Scholarships 1954-2025" which indicates that Georgetown has 41 undergraduate winners of the scholarship. Can we identify what I imagine are the 5 graduate alumni who account for the discrepancy? Ihpkt (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)