Talk:Ave Maria University

Ave Maria College / Ave Maria University timeline is inconsistent

I know that A.M.U. used to be in Michigan, and was named Ave Maria College then. Why is this not discussed in this article, other than just a few words?

This article is very confusing regarding the relationship between Ave Maria College and Ave Maria University. The first three sentences are contradictory. They say that AMC changed its name to AMU. They say that AMC "closed", but of course a college doesn't close when it changes its name. It says that AMU (not AMC) was founded in 2003.

If Ave Maria University was founded in 2003, then when was Ave Maria College founded? Did the name change happen at the same time as the move to Florida, or did it happen in 2003? Or was there a period of time when there were two separate institutions?

Someone has deleted the page Ave Maria College and replaced it with a redirect that points to a different school. According to that page, the Ave Maria College in Michigan already existed in 2000, but it doesn't say when it was founded. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is something wrong here. Either the original article on AMC should be restored with a closing date or the article that was there be moved to this article as part of it's history. To perform the latter, an editor would have to be sure that this was truly a "successor" university to the original, or merely a revival of the name after the old one had failed. There is a substantial difference. I suspect that the latter is true. Student7 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Monaghan's bio reads "Due to lack of funding, the college, against faculty and student protests, closed in 2007. Alternative funding was not secured to prevent the school's closure. St. Mary's College was sold and is now under the auspices of nearby Madonna University." So that partly answers that. The name switches are a bit confusing. Haven't quite figured that out yet. AMC was renamed, but also given to a Nicarguan school and that one survived. That is the problem about redirection. What get redirected and what doesn't. Not really that clear. Student7 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Ave Maria University-Latin American Campus. They tried to handle it as best they could. If you want to reopen, why don't you take it up with those editors on their discussion pages? Student7 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I have taken it up with "those editors". But since it also concerns this page, I am cross-posting it here. I know that the editors put a lot of work into this, but if a reader cannot learn the year that a college was founded by reading its Wikipedia article, there's a problem.

(Cross-posted to Talk:Ave Maria College#Ave Maria College / Ave Maria University.)

Can someone clarify which of the following timelines is correct?

1. AMC was founded in Michigan at some unknown date. In 2007, it moved to Florida and changed its name to AMU. A different college was founded in Nicaragua in 1993 and changed its name to AMULAC in 2007.

If this is the case, then Ave Maria College should redirect to AMU (since that's the same college with just a name change), and should not redirect to AMULAC (which was never itself named "AMC").

2. AMC was founded in Michigan. Later, a different college -- AMU -- was founded in Florida. A third college is in Nicaragua.

If this is the case, we need three separate articles. Ave Maria College in Michigan may be defunct, but it is still notable and needs its own article. It shouldn't redirect to some other college with a similar name. (If George H.W. Bush were to pass away, we wouldn't delete his article and replace it with a redirect to his son, just because they have similar names.)

3. AMC was founded in Michigan at some unknown date. Some time later, Tom Monaghan wanted to move it to Florida and rename it AMU, but other people (faculty? staff? owners?) didn't want to. As a result of this struggle, for a brief time there were two simultaneous schools: AMC in Michigan and AMU in Florida. But eventually AMC in Michigan closed. Meanwhile, a different college was founded in Nicaragua in 1993 and changed its name to AMULAC in 2007.

If this is the case, then there would be a strong argument for having two separate articles (AMC and AMU), and a strong argument for having a single article (named AMU, with AMC redirecting to it, which gave the full history of both institutions). But in any event, Ave Maria College should not redirect to a college that was never given that name.

Can anyone clarify which of these stories is true? Perhaps an older version of this article contains the answer, but the current version does not. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The college was founded in 1998. The university was founded in 2003. The university moved from a temporary campus in Naples to its permanent campus in Ave Maria town in 2007.

I don't think you can make the clear-cut distinction between "the same" and "different" that you want to. The college and the university were never completely independent, but good luck finding out the exact administrative structure. The "official" wording is that "Ave Maria College was the predecessor to Ave Maria University." The college "moved" to Florida in the sense that the university was intended to replace it. Some of the faculty transferred; others did not. Students already enrolled at the college continued to study there during the same time that newly enrolling students began at the university.

Hope that helps. I do not know the history of the Nicaragua campus. John lindgren (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

References

If I understand you correctly, then the following are all true: (1) There was never any Ave Maria University in Michigan. (2) There was never any Ave Maria College in Florida. (3) In 2007, nothing moved to Florida: rather, AMU moved from one place in Florida to another place in Florida that year. Is this all correct?

And the timeline is as follows (ignoring the Nicaraguan school):

• 1998-2003: Only one school existed: Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
• 2003-2007: Two schools existed simultaneously: AMC in Ypsilanti, and Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida. Their administrations are linked in a complex manner.
• 2007-present: Only one school exists: AMU in Ave Maria, Florida.

Is this correct?

If it is, then there are two distinct schools (AMC and AMU) which overlapped by four years. If that's the case, then I agree that it is highly misleading to say that AMC "moved to Florida and changed its name", because that implies that AMC and AMU are somehow the same school. But clearly there were people who were students at AMC in 2005, and a distinct group of people who were students at AMU in 2005. So the reality seems closer to the relationship between, say, the University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles -- two schools in the same system.

At the time, I remember hearing that Monihan, when he founded AMU, intended for AMC to vanish and for its faculty to move to Florida. If we can source this, it's important. But it doesn't change the facts.

If this is all true, then would you agree that AMC and AMU deserve two distinct articles? Or, alternatively, we could keep them in one article (named Ave Maria University), but have a section on that page entitled Ave Maria College which gives the history of AMC. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is all correct, to my knowledge. So, two distinct articles seems reasonable. John lindgren (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your choice on starting another article, but we do have quite a few articles with dual topics that are allied: abbeys and schools together, for example. Another with a shrine and a college (which annoys me, but what can I do?), still others were formed from older facilities or colleges. If it too confusing together, it might have to be moved. On the other hand, it might be less confusing as a single article since one did derive from the other. Student7 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I know, they were two separate entities with similar names. They were founded by the same guy, and a lot of staff moved between the two, but they existed at the same time, AMC in Michigan and AMU in Florida. SaavayuAdrin (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ave Maria College / Ave Maria University

(Cross-posted to Talk:Ave Maria University#Ave Maria College / Ave Maria University timeline is inconsistent.)

Can someone clarify which of the following timelines is correct?

1. AMC was founded in Michigan at some unknown date. In 2007, it moved to Florida and changed its name to AMU. A different college was founded in Nicaragua in 1993 and changed its name to AMULAC in 2007.

If this is the case, then Ave Maria College should redirect to AMU (since that's the same college with just a name change), and should not redirect to AMULAC (which was never itself named "AMC").

2. AMC was founded in Michigan. Later, a different college -- AMU -- was founded in Florida. A third college is in Nicaragua.

If this is the case, we need three separate articles. Ave Maria College in Michigan may be defunct, but it is still notable and needs its own article. It shouldn't redirect to some other college with a similar name. (If George H.W. Bush were to pass away, we wouldn't delete his article and replace it with a redirect to his son, just because they have similar names.)

3. AMC was founded in Michigan at some unknown date. Some time later, Tom Monaghan wanted to move it to Florida and rename it AMU, but other people (faculty? staff? owners?) didn't want to. As a result of this struggle, for a brief time there were two simultaneous schools: AMC in Michigan and AMU in Florida. But eventually AMC in Michigan closed. Meanwhile, a different college was founded in Nicaragua in 1993 and changed its name to AMULAC in 2007.

If this is the case, then there would be a strong argument for having two separate articles (AMC and AMU), and a strong argument for having a single article (named AMU, with AMC redirecting to it, which gave the full history of both institutions). But in any event, Ave Maria College should not redirect to a college that was never given that name.

Can anyone clarify which of these stories is true? Perhaps an older version of this article contains the answer, but the current version does not. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge / Move proposal

See Talk:Ave Maria University#Merge / Move proposal if you are interested. If this move happens, the Ave Maria University-Latin American Campus page would not be affected, but the Ave Maria College page would redirect to AMU instead of to AMU-LAC. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that this merge was completed on June 8, 2011. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge / Move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Ave Maria College into Ave Maria University. -- Bhockey10 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I think it would work either way. However, if there were a pure AMC page, it would either be very short or would end up being redundant, since the AMU article will have to mention AMC in any event.

So here is a proposal for how this could be done in one article:

• In the introductory paragraph of Ave Maria University, there would be one sentence about AMC. We can just keep the current sentence ("Ave Maria University is the successor of Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which closed in 2007.").
• The first section would be entitled History. There would be three subsections of this:
  • Ave Maria College (1998-2003) -- includes that school's history during those years.
  • Ave Maria College and Ave Maria University (2003-2007) -- includes the creation of AMU, the fact that some supported the move but others wanted to stay in Michigan, and the agreement to let the current students at AMC finish at the old campus. The current section called Founding would vanish and the material in that section would end up here instead.
  • Ave Maria University (2007-present) -- includes the history since 2007.
• The page Ave Maria College would redirect to the Ave Maria University page. Currently, it redirects to Ave Maria University-Latin American Campus, which is sort of bizarre.
• The page Ave Maria University-Latin American Campus would remain unchanged.

Any objections, modifications, or comments? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote Support, by the way. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support -- as long as adequate treatment of the history of AMC is given in the article, nihil obstat. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support' - It seems like an efficient way of handling the pages and redirects. Also helps to eliminate any confusing that may happen with the current situation where AVC redirects to the Latin American Campus. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Whether the Latin American campus deserves a separate article or not, at the very least the history section here ought to be expanded to include the University's Michigan-based predecessor and the redirect pointed here, jut as a mater of ensuring the links to Ave Maria College are not pointing to an unintended location, as some are certainly currently doing. (In fact, that's how I wound up here.) oknazevad (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Gaming austria at ave.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Gaming austria at ave.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note re archive

With the carrying of the merge, it seemed to that the discussions at Talk:Ave Maria University-Latin American Campus, which were all about the former Michigan campus, belonged better in an archive here. So I so moved them, leaving a note at the talk page there. I made sure to include wikilinks in all edit summaries, to comply with liscensing requirements. Frankly, I still find the move of the original article to one just about the Latin American campus odd. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a nice way of wrapping things up. This was messier than I originally thought. Ave Maria College was merged into the Latin American Campus but that info was lost in the history of that article once Ave Maria College closed. The original Michigan Ave Maria College should have been moved here years ago but wasn't. There was also a confusion in the above discussion about the timelines and history.

From gathering info and expanding the article the timeline goes as follows:

• 1) Ave Maria College forms in Ypsilanti, Michigan as a temporary campus before being moved to the Domino's Farm property in Ann Arbor.
• 2) When the college/Tom Monaghan (founder and supporter) didn't get the zoning rights for turning the Domino's Farm property into a university (Plan A) He secured land in rural Collier County FL (Plan B). The MI campus remained open from 2003-2007 for the remaining few 100 students to finish/graduate, transfer to other universities, or to the new Florida location.
• 3) Ave Maria University began in a temporary location in Naples in 2003, by 2007 the planned community and university campus were complete enough to move into. The MI College was closed and the university in the temp Naples location moved into the permanent home. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much my understanding of it as well, though I believe the law school is still using the Naples building, which they moved into when the rest of the university moved into the newly built main campus (It seems the law school stayed in Michigan for a little longer, as that needed special American Var Association permission to move.) oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely like what has been done, but I believe there is still one thing missing. When Monaghan announced the plan to move from Michigan to Florida, some AMC faculty were unhappy with the move. It is my understanding that during part of the period between 2003 and 2007, these faculty were trying very hard to keep the Michigan campus open permanently.

I belive this is notable for two reasons. First, the existence of a major controversy regarding this move is itself notable. Second, given this controversy, it might be ever-so-slightly POV for us to describe the relocation from Michigan to Florida merely as a "move". From Monaghan's POV the intention was a move, but from the point of view of some faculty members, Monaghan was closing one school and opening a different school.

I think that the "move" POV is clearly the most important one, not because it's the POV of Monaghan himself, but because in the end the school in Michigan did close down, and many faculty members did move from Michigan to Florida. Indeed, this is why I strongly supported merging Ave Maria College with Ave Maria University. I think that the current introduction uses exactly the right terminology when it calls AMU the successor to AMC -- because AMU is almost, but not quite, the same school as AMC in a new location with a new name. But since there are other POVs on this, I think the article should have at least one sentence about the attempt to keep the Michigan location in existence. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If we can find some credible sources of the faculty against the move trying to keep the Michigan campus open, I agree that is a notable piece of info missing. At first I thought it might be more like two university but from many of the articles I found to expand and clean up the article it seems that the Michigan location was essentially a temporary location until a permanent university was constructed in Ann Arbor at the Domino Farm. As I stated above, it appears that moving to Florida was a plan B type scenario when the city didn't approve rezoning the Domino's Farm property. It was/is a messy situation and kind of a combination of relocation and closing/opening two different schools. With AMC (MI school) staying open and overlapping AMU (FL school) until remaining students transferred out or to FL location or graduated and because of many faculty being relocated to FL that to me indicates more of a move. Rather than two separate entities where closing one wouldn't directly affect or be related to the other. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything that has been said, but bear in mind that this is a private school with essentially, at least at first, one owner. So equate this to closing a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Iowa and starting a Church's Fried Chicken in Ohio; with many of the same employees. I suppose it could be viewed as a "similar" company if not the same identical one. But the "objections" of the staff to the move can sometimes be attributed to expectations that Ann Arbor would be close to family, kids, grandkids, and Naples, Florida isn't. Objections? So what? If Monaghan says "move," they move! Even if they "all" objected. I don't see the point of recording those particularly. If no one objected, that might be notable! Maybe different for a state (public) university move. Or a move by a private institution whose founders have long since departed. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial"

The words "controversial philanthropist Tom Monaghan" appear in the lead. I dislike labeling anybody. In most cases, anyone who does anything is "controversial." All US Presidents, for example, would have to be described as "controversial" because they did things that not everyone agreed with. The non-controversial philanthropists are mostly dead. They willed their money to a philanthropy at death! The safe way, I guess.

He's a determined Catholic and the media does not care for religion, and hates Catholics, among mainstream religions, most of all. And real Catholics with money? Must give them a heart attack! That does not justify copying their pov, however. Student7 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anytime, you move any institution, but more probably a school or prison, you get a lot of people who don't like it. It will cause congestion. In this case, a lot more kids, etc. Probably all true. But so what? Student7 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please remember talk pages are not forums. His "controversial" status is supported by several references and actions. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bhockey10. We go by reliable sources which in this case support the label "controversial". That label is true, and therefore neutral. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So far, "evidence" seems to indicate that he does not just say he is Catholic, but actually follows the pope's magisterium. No wonder he has created a stir. The "criticism" is mainly anti-Catholic, so far.

Again, no one criticizes anyone who does nothing.

Again, I ask, do all US President require the term "controversial" using the same logic as used here? Dismissing my comments on the article as WP:FORUM does not answer this question about article content. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To be frank, the pope is in the minority among Catholics. Most Catholics do not follow everything he says. For instance, about 89% of American Catholics think abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances.

The problem that people have with Monaghan seems to be at the intersection of religion and politics. People in the USA generally don't want any religion to dictate a community's laws. That's what Monaghan ran up against in Florida. His retreat from that position was very limited: he still wants to have the college under his total control.

At any rate, trying to compare Monaghan to American presidents is not going to remove the word controversial from this article. That word is here because reliable sources use it. Pointing to presidents is pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a failing tactic. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Another problem for the lead, is that Monaghan has become the topic. He is actually non-WP:TOPIC. Maybe okay for "controversy" section which a lot of articles have, but making him predominant in the lead appears to be way WP:UNDUE. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not off topic because he is so closely connected and associated with the university. WP:UNDUE actually states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." so the viewpoint that he's controversial by multiple reliable sources follows the exact definition. Undue weight would apply if half the article was about him rather than the university. Since the lead is a summary of the article the use of the word controversial is acceptable since further details about the controversial issues is highlighted further into the article. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that it's necessary to include "controversial" or "philanthropist." There exists an article on Monaghan; the reader can learn more about him there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this controversy surrounding Monaghan is not some random bit of biographical information that is of reduced or nil importance to the article's topic. Rather, there are two solid controversies regarding Ave Maria University, with Monaghan at the center of each. He fired the respected provost, an act seen by one reliable source as "institutional suicide" for the university. He declared himself the religious arbiter of morals in his new college town and in the central university. This latter position netted a bunch of criticism and he backed off but only slightly. Monaghan's controversial leadership of the university is what is important here, not, for instance, some controversial business decision of his back when he was at the helm of Domino's. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See, even having read the lead where these controversies are discussed, I thought "controversial philanthropist" was intended to convey that there was something controversial about the philanthropy. Since the lead discusses the controversies, why is the language necessary? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved a piece of details about the controversies to the history section, the lead shouldn't be used to detail controversies only give concise overview of the article, per WP:Lead. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving Fessio's firing out of the lead section removes that portion of Monaghan-generated controversy which resulted in criticism from inside and outside the college. If that bit were mentioned in the lead, Monaghan could be said to be criticized not only by outsiders but insiders as well. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If the descriptors are to be kept, may I suggest "by Tom Monaghan, whose leadership has generated controversy" or similar? This will avoid the confusion I mentioned above, where I thought the "controversial" applied to the "philanthropist." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is confusing. Is the article about Ave Maria or Monaghan. I don't understand why the following is in the lead: "Monaghan has generated criticism from observers outside of Ave Maria. In 2004 when he announced that the town and university would ban contraceptives, abortion and pornography, sharply critical news stories resulted in a Monaghan backing off to a milder form of civic planning." This information might warrant being said later in the article (in a manner in which the sentences are about Ave Maria and not about Monaghan) but is not material that should be included in the lead. As it is worded, the subject of the quoted language is Monaghan and not Ave Maria. Also, "from observers" is not specific enough. Who are the observers? City boy77 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So how would you word the lead section, keeping true to WP:LEAD and summarizing the main points of the article? Regarding "observers", the article body gives the detail of who. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the current re-write is considerably better, although it is still a bit Monaghan-centric. I would write it as follows:

Ave Maria University is a private Roman Catholic university in southwest Florida, United States, founded in 2003. The university moved into its permanent campus, situated in the planned town of Ave Maria, 17 miles (27 km) east of Naples, Florida, in August 2007. Ave Maria University shares its history with the former Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which was founded in 1998 and closed in 2007.

The university has garnered national attention because of actions taken by its founder, Tom Monaghan. For example, news reports were highly critical of Monaghan's 2004 proposed policy banning contraceptives, abortion and pornography at the university and throughout the town of Ave Maria. In 2007, Monaghan drew criticism from Catholics both inside and outside of the university when he removed theologian Joseph Fessio from the position of provost.

I think it's an improvement because it does a better job of keeping the lead about the university ("The university has garnered national attention"). I didn't do the change because it is only a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by City boy77 (talk • contribs)

References

Looks like a good suggestion to me. I like the way that Monaghan's controversial actions are addressed at his first mention rather than waiting a few more sentences as in my version. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the lead reads much better with the recent changes. Nice work everyone, a textbook example of how Wikipedia should work through discussions and revisions and collaboration to help improve the material! Bhockey10 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I put City boy77's idea into the article, but I replaced "garnered national attention" (which was a bit weak and also too domestic—international agencies covered some stories) with "attracted criticism". Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Theologian

When someone is dismissed from a position, his former or future occupation is seldom mentioned. So when a governor or president dismisses an advisor or cabinet member, the media does not say, dismissed "Chicken Farmer Schwartz!" But rather "dismissed his advisor for protocol, Schwartz" or whatever the job was not what the occupant's job used to be or would be. The intent appears to be trying to connect Fessio's theology with the dismissal. I see nothing here that ties the two together at all. Just two people that did not get along. Describing him as a "horse trader" hardly means anything at all. But "theologian" in a religious organization is an automatic red flag. But a red flag for no reason. A red herring, actually. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you get your foundational truth about "former or future occupation" being "seldom mentioned". That does not ring a bell at all. Instead, it is respectful and usual to say, for instance, economist Paul Krugman or film critic Pauline Kael. One normally writes the career in front of the name. There is absolutely no connection to Fessio being a theologian and his dismissal—none stated and none implied. It was not my wish to connect the role of theologian and the dismissal over disagreements regarding financial direction. The push to remove the word theologian appears disrespectful and cheap.

Reliable sources have used this construction, including the book Power and peril: the Catholic Church at the crossroads on page 80. I don't see why we shouldn't. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Show me where Obama or Bush dismissed a person described by the media as "Business tycoon Smith" or "University Professor Jones" and not their former job with the administration which was "Secretary of Food Tasting" or whatever. People are not normally described by their former or future occupation when dismissed. We don't always use media when they skew over into biased reporting.

On that note, I am helping maintain an article on an ongoing event in India where the only source of news are tabloids from one side only. We have to "filter" them for the few nuggets. Printing "everything" they wrote would be preposterous. When the media has an axe to grind (as they do in this case - trying to make a serious Catholic look bad), the bias in reporting must be ignored. What other pov could be had by reporting the replacing of a provost in suggesting that "theology" had played a part in his dismissal? Student7 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In this article the reader is told specifically what the beef was: Fessio privately voiced to Dr. Sites his serious concern about financial activities directed from the top. There is no hint that theological arguments were part of the problem. The reader is not ill-served by knowing Fessio is a respected theologian. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the media cares. Cares extremely.

I do not understand why the presumably unbiased reader would care and why the article, which is supposed to be about the university and not people, might be better served if they went instead to Fessio's bio to uncover this otherwise irrelevant piece of information.

What instead would it have mattered any more or less to the article had he been a baker, janitor, or Undersecretary of State? All equally irrelevant to his personal disagreements with Monaghan. Student7 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Baker? Janitor?? A degreed theologian deserves, and for the most part receives, scholarly respect. Laborers without such a degree do not.

How about a deal? We remove "Catholic philanthropist and former Domino's Pizza owner and founder" from the article, leaving Tom Monaghan untitled, we remove "Bishop" from in front of Frank Dewane, we remove "former Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and former President of Saint Vincent College" from in front of James Towey, and we remove "Academic Vice President" from in front of Jack Sites. Along with all that we can drop "theologian". <== (sarcasm, WP:POINTY suggestion, not serious)

I just don't see the beef with saying Fessio's a theologian once in the lead section. It seems petty to fight to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait! Wait. The media would probably disagree with removing "pizza owner" from Monaghan. The idea is a put-down; that a financially solvent non-educator would dare to not only finance an institution but attempt to run it---so those adjectives, being sufficiently pejorative, must stay.

"Bishop" seems fair once. It explains what he was doing there. That line is not manifestly important to the article though, other to indicate that it does have Catholic approval, which probably could be conveyed some other way. But certainly others, with articles, could have past biographical material removed.

There wouldn't be anything wrong with a) explaining in the text (not the lead) that Fessio was selected for Provost, perhaps based on his performance as a Theologian (if true). But mentioning him as a fired Theologian (instead of Provost who wasn't getting along with Monaghan) in the lead (or anyplace else) is clearly, and rather deliberate, pov, IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not seeing whatever bugbear that 'theologian' is putting into the article. It's a term of respect. Do you respect Fessio? Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been fairly consistent in my edits removing irrelevant jobs from people's unwanted resumes in articles about places or schools. These properly belong in bios, where they exist. It is helpful to include terms like "bishop" (once and only once) so the reader can understand what the sentence (and the person) is doing there. When Fessio is there for theological reasons, the term can, and probably should be included. But when it is irrelevant to the sentence (or article, it should be deliberately omitted). Maybe Monaghan's inexperience in collegiate matters can be highlighted by "former pizza king." But Fessio did not come to blows with Monaghan because he was a theologian. To say so, is to mislead the reader. We don't say, "Former high school Varsity letter winner in tennis." It is equally irrelevant. But not more irrelevant than "theologian" in this case.

The guide is to omit side irrelevancies. If it can be even remotely demonstrated that theology played a part in his dismissal, maybe. But there is not even a hint of that. Therefore it is irrelevant to this article. And "respect" is pov and has nothing to do with it, either way. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC is not relevant to single-word descriptions of a person's career. It's relevant to sentences and even paragraphs that go off course, so much so that the material should be cut out and pasted into another article. One single word describing a person is not straying off course; in fact, it is helping the reader get context.

It looks to me as if your push to remove "theologian" revolves around the concern that the reader may mistake the friction between Monaghan and Fessio as theological in nature when it was financial and administrative; about the direction Monaghan was going with school finances. I think the article does a fine job of telling the reader what the nature was of the conflict. I think the article does not mislead the reader into thinking there was a difference of a religious nature. It is very clear! The notional reader who misunderstands the conflict after reading the article is not the kind of person we can help—if they misunderstand after reading the straightforward and brief description, they would not benefit from any other wording we could add or take away. We can dismiss them as unreachable.

My argument can be summed up as a defense against an attack from Monaghan sympathizers. I am sticking up for the underdog, Fessio, because nobody else is, and because he deserves respect for his career attainment even though he was fired. I think it is a cheap shot to remove the one word "theologian" from in front of his name to make him smaller and less important. I feel like it is the hand of Monaghan at work on the article, and I resist such conflicted campaigns. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually "theologian" is a lesser specialty to "provost" or "college professor." Like if "Del Webb" were fired from his job first as CEO, then as department head, describing him as a "carpenter." It seems to have less to do with respect for Fessio as it does in suggesting something between Fessio and Monaghan to the casual reader (i.e. most of Wikipedia readers spend one minute on a page). Lots of people are "theologians" that were never college professors nor provost. Student7 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Theologian" is a doctorate-level career. "Carpenter" is not. I don't see the relevancy of your argument. If you think Fessio's lowest achievement is "theologian" then why are you fighting it in the article? This battle you have chosen is a tempest in a teapot, not worthy of the POV tag you placed in the lead section. Good writing involves giving the reader a little bit of context about people, and "theologian Joseph Fessio" is just that little bit. You have not suggested any alternative word; you have only argued for removal. How about "theologian and Provost Joseph Fessio"? That gives more of the context you seem to want. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet here, that "theologian" should be included. In fact, "theologian" is not a lesser specialty than "provost". "Provost" is a temporary appointment at the will of the president of the college, not a career, in most cases. Academic administrators are always faculty members with Ph.D.s in academic areas, and at most schools they're also members of the faculty. They're universally identified by their specialties as well as by their administrative title. The administrative title is temporary, but once a theologian, always a theologian. It's normal and neutral to mention the academic specialty of an administrator when talking about them. "What's the dean?" "She's a theologian." This is a normal, natural, neutral piece of dialogue.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently a high ranking general was dismissed from his post in Afghanistan, for whatever reason, which isn't important here, but it wasn't that there was any fault in his purely military decisions. It was for something he said that was contrary to what the administration wanted said at that particular time (as I recall). Anyway, press reports did not read, "Civil-Engineer (or whatever his education/former career was) Smith was dismissed..." but rather "General Smith was dismissed..." because his highest attainment was General. His former career irrelevant, of course, as it should be. Student7 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah agreeing with me you do not have consensus to remove the word 'theologian'. If you want to bring your concern to a wider swath of editors, start a WP:Request for comment on this talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is standard usage for talking about academics. If you want to argue by analogy, you should find examples of academics being hired for or fired from administrative positions. Even presidents of the United States who have academic credentials are referred to by those credentials. Search on "engineer Herbert Hoover" or "historian Woodrow Wilson" to see what I mean. An academic specialty is not a rank, and once obtained, is never lost.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in lead section

I keep restoring a criticism paragraph to the lead section. Penguinluver1431 and 67.239.64.253 were removing it but now are moving it from the lead section to the article body.

The criticism paragraph in the lead section was written specifically for the lead section as a summary of criticism that is described in the article body. The only place it should ever appear is the lead section—in the article body it is redundant. Per WP:LEAD, the paragraph has a valid place in the lead section because various criticisms have been leveled at AMU, they are described in the article body, and they ought to be summarized in the lead section.

Note that 67.239.64.253 is an IP address at Ave Maria University, so it is in WP:Conflict of interest with this article. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

These are likely the same user, too, so this may be some sock puppetry.oknazevad (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think that this material should go in the lead. As Orange Mike said at the COI/N, this is the main thing that makes this school notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this?

Tom Monaghan, Ave Maria's founder, has been criticized in the press for proposing that contraceptives, abortion, and pornography be banned from the university and the town itself.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is good for what it is but it does not include the criticism against Monaghan for firing theologian and Provost Joseph Fessio, respected by his peers and popular with the AMU students who mounted the first AMU student protest in the wake of the firing. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, right, I forgot about that. I was focused on trying to trim the sentence down a little and just forgot. Do you have an idea? I'll think it over.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The easy answer is that I have already considered the problem which led me to write the previous criticism/controversy paragraph, first brought to the article here on August 15. The problem is how to summarize two distinct criticisms: restrictions on civil liberties, and firing Fessio. A paragraph seemed more appropriate than a sentence tacked onto another paragraph, mostly because of reading flow—the existing lead paragraphs did not offer a tie-in to a summary of criticism. Once a whole paragraph is decided, it usually needs more than one sentence to present the ideas. Because of two distinct criticisms, I formed a paragraph of three sentences, the first merely to set up the next two. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this?

Tom Monaghan, Ave Maria's founder, has been criticized in the press for proposing that contraceptives, abortion, and pornography be banned from the university and the town itself. In 2007, Monaghan drew criticism from Catholics both inside and outside the university when he removed theologian Joseph Fessio as provost.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but Monaghan is introduced in the previous paragraph so we don't need his whole name or a wikilink. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. I was thinking that this should be the third para in the lead, and then we unwikify Monaghan below? Where do you see the para going?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Right! I was off base. I implemented your two sentences in the lead because they succinctly summarize the article body text. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now an IP reverts this discussed change. What should we do, does anyone suppose? (including you, IP editor. Why not talk about it?)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: The IP is registered to Ave Maria University, so I'll drop a note at the COIN.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I pinged the COIN about this IP three days ago. It's still active, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ave_Maria_University. Per WP:COI, the IP should not be allowed to revert controversial text. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated your report over there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy part first. "theologian" may be Fessio's day job, but not his main job. It's like the President dismissing his Chief of Staff and reporting that "the President fired attorney Jones." Jones was not doing any "attorneying" when he was dismissed. His top job ever was "Chief of Staff," a very important and visible job. Fessio's biggest job ever was "Provost." He was fired because Monaghan did not care for his performance as Provost. The implication (for other obvious reasons) is that the media wanted to emphasize "theology" to insinuate that there was a "theological" dispute. Which there was not. He was probably hired because Monaghan liked his theology. And probably still likes it. But he no longer like Fessio! At least let that event stand on it's own merits and not try to impute another reason to what is real.

Banning porn from a religious school, that has announced that it is really religious and not just pretending, is fairly routine. Why would that surprise anyone. His wanting to ban porn from the town is reportable, but just not here in the University article. Maybe in Monaghan's article and in the town article. That, alone, is non WP:TOPIC here.

Also, pretty much "flash in the pan." Enforcing a Catholic code for a catholic school is verboten? Why in the world would that seem peculiar? Just to the media IMO. They live in their own little world where everyone else is supposed to follow their rules/agenda. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your position that by calling Fessio a theologian the media was insinuating that he was fired for his theological position strikes me as synthesis. This seems to me like a normal way of referring to academics. It's nothing at all like the President dismissing his Chief of Staff. At a university, the discipline of the administrator is considered to be more important than their administrative position, and administrators are routinely referred to in that way. If the newspapers report it that way, that's how we should cover it. Interpreting their motives is synthesis or original research. Likewise the media's coverage of the events. If they report it, we should cover it. Their motives, or why they find it remarkable, are not our business.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable sources connecting Fessio's theology to the reason for his firing. What ones have you seen? I don't think "the media wanted to emphasize" theology; they simply listed Fessio's profession. Please point out the sources that appear to you as putting forward the wrong reason for firing. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in lead section part 2

so User:Student7 wants to take the paragraph about the controversy out of the lead because it's "too minor to summarize in lead. A small sensation at the time despite the media. Hardly uniq..." xe didn't participate in last 5 days of the discussion in the section immediately above, but I'm willing to reopen it here. It seems that about 8% of the hits on Ave Maria University in Newsbank have to do with the controversy, which seems hardly minor. There's coverage there from both CNN and the Washington Post, which seems hardly local. Also, I'm not sure how something can be "a small sensation...despite the media." The extent of media coverage is what determines the size of the sensation, right? Outside of Floridian and Catholic circles, it seems to me that the controversy with Fessio, Monaghan's attempts to impose regulations on the town, and also some bond funding irregularities are the main things that Ave Maria is known for. Much of the other coverage in Newsbank is routine reporting on college activities. Can we maybe discuss this some more here, please?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Civil liberties. Someone mentioned "civil liberties" above. I think they are confusing this private school with a public university which has to tolerate just about any behavior. A private university doesn't have to tolerate any behavior. I would suspect that student's in any university, public or private must sign a receipt that they understand that they must follow university procedures and failure to do so may result in dismissal. This is actually true in a private university. Hard to enforce in a public one. How long did they allow that "naked guy" to wander around in some UCal campus before they wised up? Years, as I recall. It was a public college. He wouldn't have lasted ten minutes at any religious school. And all quite legal. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The ACLU focused on the town, not the university. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Who cares if it's legal or not? It's not the question. Obviously the university has the right to ban pornography and birth control and whatever it wants within federal funding guidelines for the acceptance of public funds. They can even drop that and do whatever they want to, like Bob Jones University. It's irrelevant whether they can do it. It's irrelevant whether they should do it. The only thing that's relevant is whether the controversy over it is important enough to put in the lead. This is determined by the amount, the depth, and the persistence of the coverage. Can we talk about that?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Student7, we go by what reliable sources report. Most of them tie the civil liberties issue with the foundation of the university and Monaghan's wishes for it. The civil liberties issue is not just about the town; it is about the development of AMU. Some of the observers are affronted by Monaghan's restrictions within AMU, most by the restrictions outside of AMU in the town. Alan Cooperman writes that not only has Monaghan picked up criticism for the restrictions but also for moving AMU from Michigan to Florida, a story that is not yet told in the article but should be. Jennifer Cox writes that Ann Arbor feels duped by Monaghan. Mary Beth Marklein writes that the ACLU focused on the restrictions on the town. Susan Hansen writes that the problems are all rooted in Monaghan's personality, that he was building AMU and the town together "in his own image." Brian Skoloff writes that the town and the university were developed together with the "primary goal... the construction of Ave Maria University", and the early plans for restrictions on civil liberties had both AMU and the town following the same policies. Naomi Schaeffer Riley writes that AMU first had controversy with running Professor Charles Rice off the board, then in Monaghan's unilateral announcement of restrictions on porn and contraceptives in the plan to move to Florida. The move away from Ann Arbor was controversial in itself. Marklein writes that "Monaghan also has created an extraordinary amount of ill will, particularly among former faculty and staff, many of them devout Catholics who once admired Monaghan's vision but eventually grew embittered by their experiences. Their disgruntlement with the Ave Maria enterprise covers a broad continuum... Most complaints can be boiled down to one thing: Monaghan, who is the university's primary donor and chancellor, has too much control over an institution of higher education, of which shared governance is a hallmark."

Basically, the criticism in the lead section is a sufficient summary of criticism described in the article body. However, it appears that the article body (and the lead) should be expanded to include further controversy, including Ann Arbor's bad feelings, board member Charles Rice being pushed out, and the common assessment that Monaghan is the source of every problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the bond funding issue, which I'll try to write something about soon.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but town issues should not be in the school article. It is separate from the school. The ACLU comments can be separated out. I don't recall a quote. They may be bound in Monaghan's mind and in the ACLU's, but Wikipedia should follow a stronger intellectual boundary per WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Once the town is up and running on its own, yes, it will be somewhat independent of AMU. However, when it was in the planning stages, and when ground was first being broken, the town was intimately tied to Monaghan's plans for AMU. It would not exist except for AMU. The early history of the town is indistinguishable from the early history of AMU in Florida, all going back to the Michigan days when Monaghan first announced his dream for a university surrounded by a town of his making, the whole area following his idea of strict Catholic orthodoxy. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in lead section part 3

Binksternet, what is the criteria for the town to be considered "up and running on its own" and independent of the university and founder? Anyone, what is the current status of the town? Does it have it's own governance, facilities, law enforcement, fire protection, public schools, private businesses not owned by the university or founder? Jacona (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The town of Ave Maria, Florida, has a very unusual status; through lobbying by Monaghan, the developer, Baron Collier, controls the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District, so it writes its own ticket in the area. Local residents have no say in local matters.[1][2] If the media reports that this status has changed, then we can report the change. Until further notice, the town is not independent. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Who controls Barron Collier cos? I am somewhat familiar with the man, but not the developer. Is it Monaghan? Searching sunbiz didn't help much, because it is hard to tell what company or companies is involved (it may not even be a Florida corporation). Jacona (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2002 Monaghan signed a 50–50 partnership with the Barron Collier top guy – Paul Marinelli (Marinelli died in 2008.[3]) Marinelli initiated the connection; he contacted Monaghan and offered a sweetheart deal for relocating Monaghan's Catholic college to Florida. Monaghan was going to get all of the university land for free. The advantage to Barron Collier Cos was that some unpromising agricultural land of theirs would suddenly be valuable. This value was to be shared equally with Monaghan.[4] Currently, the head of Barron Collier Cos appears to be Blake Gable.[5]

So who has control of the town, the Barron Collier Cos or the University? Jacona (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Both, as far as I understand it. The agreement between them is described as 50–50. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There seemed to be a lot of interest in edit warring, but when it came to the talk page it looks like just you and me, Binksternet. I am not particularly passionate about the subject, just wanted to avert the development of a battleground atmosphere. The current information, as of 06/07/15, appears to adhere to a WP:NPOV and acknowledges the controversy surrounding the founder and the town, and in an appropriate place. I do think the School of Law material (next section) should be minimized and refer to the Ave Maria School of Law article. Is there any disagreement? Jacona (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only agree to the reduction of law school detail; whatever we say about the law school here should be a brief overview, or it should be about any observed connections between the university and the law school.

Regarding criticism of the university, there is a whole lot more to say, for instance about the low student retention numbers, and about the storm of controversy and the resentment caused by the move from Michigan to Florida. Unfortunately, the only thing that catalyzes me to research the topic and flesh out the criticism is the moment when I realize another promotional or conflicted account shows up to reduce the article's negative text. Recently we saw the removal of negative information by an IP address owned by the university, and we saw the same exact work performed by an account which happens to share the same name as the university's real life ‎communications and marketing manager. So the unaffiliated editors (such as myself) need to keep on our toes, trying to assess what is a neutral representation of the university with regard to the press it has received. I don't think we are there yet, as too much bad press has been pruned away. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you as to content, and also as to IP and single purpose editors, but I do believe the negative info (especially when it's old news and associated with the founder or the town, rather than the University per se) should have it's own section, rather being the description of the University itself, which is the purpose of the lede. We should not allow frustration with coi editors to affect our own WP:NPOV. Jacona (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ave Maria School of Law. Part of Ave Maria University, or separate entity?

From what I'm reading here, the Ave Maria School of Law shares a name, founder and other roots and thereby deserves mention in this article. Since the law school now has its own article, its own board, and is apparently a completely separate entity, shouldn't it be converted to a "see also", or at least trimmed and moved down the hierarchy? Is there an additional current connection that is not clear from this article?

Thanks for your input! Jacona (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ave Maria 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609064207/http://www.tilt-up.org:80/awards/achievement/2008/maria.html to http://www.tilt-up.org/awards/achievement/2008/maria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ave Maria 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716130259/https://www.avemarialaw.edu/index.cfm?event=academics.curriculum to https://www.avemarialaw.edu/index.cfm?event=academics.curriculum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ave Maria 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223114602/http://www.sacscoc.org/2015decemberActionsandDisclosureStatements/15cractdecember.pdf to http://www.sacscoc.org/2015decemberActionsandDisclosureStatements/15cractdecember.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede

A good leade section "tells the reader the basics in a nutshell", and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." A controversy over a personnel decision 10 years ago simply is none of the above, it seems more likely that someone has an axe to grind. Jacona (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference #4 gives 404 error

The link https://www.naplesnews.com/errors/404/ (shows as reference #4) leads to a 404 page and should be removed. Rebekah Richards (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a few archived URLs from the Wayback Machine. The guideline at Wikipedia:Link rot recommends this kind of update and preservation rather than deletion. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Rebekah Richards (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Enrollment numbers outdated and comments about growth not supported

• Note I am new to Wiki editing at this level --and yes have been asked by a friend that works at the University to update the page --so please let me know if I need to do things differently.

Issue #1 Current text: "The current enrollment of Ave Maria University is 1,072 students, 85 percent of whom are Catholic,[5] with 1,019 undergraduate students and 53 graduate students on its campus." Reference #5 (http://www.gulfshorelife.com/February-2014/Ave-Maria-Is-Finding-Its-Groove/) does not support any of the numbers it references (neither the enrollment numbers or the percentage of Catholic students). It is also outdated as it is an article from 2014.

This page provides current numbers for the 2017-2018 school year: https://www.avemaria.edu/best-college-university-rankings/

Requested text change: The 2017-2018 enrollment of Ave Maria University is 1,100. That includes students from 45 states and 20 countries, and a student body that is approximately 85% Catholic, 25% minority, and evenly-divided between men and women.

References

Issue #2 current text: The university has seen little enrollment growth in recent years[6] and hopes to grow to an enrollment of 1,500 by the year 2020.[7][8] This is a significant drop from the school's stated enrollment goal in 2013, when it said in an offering memorandum for $60 million in bonds that the university had "set a goal of growing the University's undergraduate enrollment at its main campus in Florida to approximately 1,700 students by the fall of 2016."

Discussion: Since 2014 it does look like enrollment has held steady at 1100 so this is fine but from 2010 to 2017 enrollment grew by 284 students (35%). Which is the most accurate and helpful portrayal?

The Quoted text in this sentence has no citation and I could not find one to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekah Richards (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue #3 Current text: and AMU hopes to grow to an enrollment of 1,500 by the year 2020. Reference 7 (https://www.avemaria.edu/campus/about-ave-maria/factbook/) does not support this claim Reference 8 (https://blog.avemaria.edu/post/116998385693/warp-speed) goes to a coming soon page. Needs to show archived page at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160909001309/https://blog.avemaria.edu/post/116998385693/warp-speed

Rebekah Richards (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the "Warp Speed" blog post by Jim Towey is where the claim comes from: 1,500 by 2020. I added the archived URL. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Organization

It is my opinion this article could use quite a bit of reorganization. I think the content is good, but some sections should be combined and the lede trimmed with the less important information being placed elsewhere. For instance, "The firing of Fessio" and "Health care lawsuit" sections should move to the history section, where they could be either paragraphs or subsections. Info about "former campuses" would also be appropriately placed in history, rather than the lede. I'm looking for comments here...Thanks! Jacona (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jacona, I support reorganizing and expanding the history section. I think the student life section also needs some attention—a lot there is either stale or trivial. Cheers, gnu57 18:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ave Maria University.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Gettelman, Elizabeth (June 28, 2007). "Monaghan's Ave Maria Town Open for Piety". Mother Jones.
• Boyer, Peter J. (February 11, 2007). "The Deliverer". The New Yorker.
• Riley, Naomi Schaefer (November 11, 2005). "Bringing a Law School Down". The Wall Street Journal. First appearance of "Catholic Jonestown" as a pejorative against Ave Maria. Frequently quoted afterward.

Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A Historical Narrative on the Formative Years and Organizational Culture of Ave Maria University: 2003 to 2011

This citation was removed.

Dissertations may not be interesting, but this 2020 doctoral dissertation, “A Historical Narrative on the Formative Years and Organizational Culture of Ave Maria University: 2003 to 2011,” conducted at the College of William and Mary in Virginia examined how a new, conservative Catholic university emerged in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century.

It provides foundational documents.

Moran, Patricia Lourdes. “A Historical Narrative on the Formative Years and Organizational Culture of Ave Maria University: 2003 to 2011.” College of William and Mary in Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2020.

Not arguing to keep, just my observation that it does provide information.Kmccook (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)