| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calls for Resignation by Professor Rice
editThe fact that Professor Rice called for the resignations of others besides Fr. Jenkins belongs on Rice's bio page and not Jenkins', doesn't it? Hanksummers (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It also belongs here DesScorp (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
==
editInvitation of President Obama: I think it should be clarified that the invitation itself was far less controversial than the decision to award an honorary degree. Few found fault with issuing the invitation. Many found fault with granting the honorary degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.194.196 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Also it needs to be posted that many of the clergy found fault for inviting an extreme pro-abortion president. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.124.49 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
'Commitment and Vision' section
editThe third paragraph of the 'Commitment and Vision' section seems to be too much biased towards his institution's (Notre Dame's) point of view.
Meanwhile, the fourth paragraph of the same section seems to be a bit too biased against Notre Dame. The fourth paragraph also seems to me missing some useful context, particularly in regards to the sentence about health care policy, and (from another direction) in the sentence about the performances of The Vagina Monologues on campus.
In any event, both these paragraphs seem to treat Notre Dame as if it were the *only* Catholic University of national stature in the US. It is not. And it would be useful to treat these policies in the context of policies at other, similar US Catholic institutions of higher education.
'Interests' section
editI noticed that the citation does not actually support the statement. The statement itself does not seem necessary to the entry. I'd appreciate hearing from others before striking it. Ccox csc (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Reverts
editI have reverted a number of recent revisions due to the following. Please see [[1]] which states "At the same time, I strongly disagree with Notre Dame’s decision to provide funding for contraception in its health insurance plans, which involves it even more directly in contributing to immoral activity. " and then see this [[2]]. Unbroken Chain (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The salary section should not have been deleted. It was factual, unbiased, and based on reliable sources (the South Bend Tribune--a local newspaper from Notre Dame's hometown) and government archived documents. I added back the sentence concerning the ND tradition of inviting POTUS to speak at commencement (with a valid source this time).
- Feel free to verify the sources. Ebradle5 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)