Talk:University of Santo Tomas/Archive 2

; Archives
	Archive 1 (Up to August 31, 2006); Archive 2 (September 1, 2006–August 27, 2014);

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recent Changes

The article was moved to a new page earlier, under the title "Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas." I've moved it back to this page in accordance with WP:NAME, which calls for the use of the "most easily recognized name," and to avoid any objections in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:BOOSTER. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move History of UST to article of its own?

Should we move the "History of UST" part to History of the University of Santo Tomas? Yes or No? TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Move partial list of University-wide student orgs in article to List of UST student organizations?

Should we move the partial list of [[1]] to List of University of Santo Tomas student organizations ? I propose this because I think the main UST article should by trimmed a bit, leaving only the link to the article of full list of UST student orgs. Agree/Disagree? Comments/Opinions/Reactions? TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The current list of organizations in the main article of USTe includes only the university wide organizations that are recognized by I-forgot-what USTe office. Same goes to the History section. Both of these sections are merely summaries. So for me, it's just okay to leave them in the main article. Also, I find the article of USTe usual in length. Thank you. --Pampi1010 (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GAC

I evaluated the article based on 7 criteria:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

Congratulations, the article is passed. I do have a few comments- one, that I would like to see more referrences from other sources beside the university website. While I'm not counting off for that, as it's definately an authoritative source, more from other places would be cool. Second, please place a conversion in parentheses after hectares- I have no idea how big that is. I'd recommend square miles, but I'm not sure what the manual of style says on that issue. Anyway, good job. --PresN 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll looking for better sources and convert hectares into square meters. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 18 UAAP men's basketball championships

The newspapers are wrong. Check out UAAP Basketball Champions and count the number of championships. It's only 18. Perhaps the newspapers were trying to say that if the NCAA title would be included, it would be 19 in total. --Howard the Duck 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The words disputed are the following:

"and claims to be the oldest university in the Philippines and in Asia,^[1] The University of San Carlos in Cebu City, which was founded in 1595 but was granted university charter in 1948, is the oldest school. ^[2]"

They have been removed from the article as of 09:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC). --Howard the Duck 09:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC) References:

^ UST General Information UST.edu.ph Accessed August 6, 2006
^ About USC USC.edu.ph Accessed August 6, 2006

Claim in the Encarta dictionary:

vt maintain something is true: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true

To say that UST "claims" is inaccurate and NPOV because the cited source says it "is" not it "claims". Unless you come up with a source that UST claims to be the oldest university. I'm willing to let "dispute" stay as it is. --Howard the Duck 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument is illogical. The cited source is no other than UST's website itself. It is an institutional claim that is made by the documentation on that website. In fact, the page that the inline citation is non-neutral. Cross-referencing with the other references such as history texts by Tolentino, de la Costa, Arcilla, etc. lead to the simple conclusion that all that the page cited contains is a claim. To state that it "is" the oldest is precisely what is in dispute here. It is NOT settled, except in non-neutral sources which don't really serve much as evidence. This is what has been discussed in the previous editing that this page has undergone. You may want to read that before editing further. This is also precisely the reason why until recently, that particular aspect of the lead has been unchanged: to say that UST "claims to be" is a clear statement of fact, which is the most neutral phrasing given the differing sources. You can try looking up and using the phrase "asserts that it is," but this phrasing is, for all intents and purposes, no different. I will continue reverting until this issue is settled. Rmcsamson 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If historians can't settle it, then it is very difficult for us to settle it either.

Again even if the cited source is not neutral as you say, then you can cite a source that says UST "claims" to be the oldest university, then "claim" should stay. We should follow what the cited source is. Anyhoo, the UST website reference should stay, even if another source is found. And what is an NPOV source for this "fact"? --Howard the Duck 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If we can't settle it, then we can't exactly treat the "is" as fact. And there is still no refutation to the fact that what the website contains is a claim. That's pretty simple logic.Rmcsamson 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But even if it is a claim, but as long as it is cited, we must stick to what is said on the cited source. Again, adding a source that says UST "claims" that it is the oldest will solve the problem. --Howard the Duck 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the source cited is a non-neutral claim. It is a matter of institutional opinion. The only inverse of that non-neutral statement is to say it's a lie, which would still be non-neutral. The "is" is a claim, not clearly a matter of fact. Until it is, reversion will continue. Rmcsamson 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But hey, I'm all for discussion. Here's more claiming: [2].Rmcsamson 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the source cited is a non-neutral claim. It is a matter of institutional opinion. The only inverse of that non-neutral statement is to say it's a lie, which would still be non-neutral. The "is" is a claim, not clearly a matter of fact. Until it is, reversion will continue. Rmcsamson 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But that will be different from what the cited source, no matter how POV it is. Also, NPOV is not broken since another source, from the USC website no less, refutes this, and is given right after the UST source.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

So instead of "claims" and "disputed", I propose to use "is", like this:

...it was established in April 28, 1611, and says it is the oldest existing university in the Philippines and in Asia,[UST source here]; on the other hand, the University of San Carlos in Cebu City, says it is the oldest university for it was was founded in 1595 and was granted university charter in 1948.[USC source here]

And the source you cited is although it is under the subheading, "oldest university", it veers into the "oldest school" debate. ;) --Howard the Duck 16:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We're splitting hairs. Of the proposed changes, only the second clause might be needed. To say "... and says it is the..." is no different from saying "and claims to be." It's still the same argument, it's still a say-ing, it's still a claim. Arguably, to use the infinitive "to be" is in fact, the more appropriate usage, because it's a basic usage of the verb "is" without being skewed toward a particular tense or being given any temporal color The second clause is fine, unless you want the more active verb "dispute."

Re "oldest university" vs. "oldest school" debate, there's really no distinction in my opinion. The university is still, ontologically, the same man-made thing which was founded as a school/college/whatever. Rmcsamson 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Encarta, "say" means:

vt indicate something: to convey information in written or printed words, numbers, or symbols

So it is quite different from "claim"; why invent two different words if they say absolutely the same thing. The article isn't saying which came first, it merely presents the cases of the two parties, and allows the reader to judge for himself which is correct.

So any suggestion on how to phrase the UST part? "Claim" is also a loaded word, you know, that's why I'd rather stick to simple words like "say", "is", etc. --Howard the Duck 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

@ oldest university/school, well it isn't the same everywhere. Some universities do not have basic education units, so they're not "schools" in the Filipino sense of the word. Lets just present the two sides fairly, without using weasel and loaded words, shall we? --Howard the Duck 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider this. It's not the article that's making the claim. The claim is made by the schools. The article's merely supposed to SAY that. There's a marked difference. The ARTICLE can also SAY that both schools MAINTAIN that they are the oldest (maintain's etymological roots are the Latin phrase "to hold in the hand"). The matter isn't about loaded words. It's appropriate English. One can even argue that "claim" is the appropriate word here: both schools have their basis, but neither, at least as far as this discussion has shown, has enough of a case to make the assertion definitive and conclusive. Re oldest university/school: The existence of basic education units is irrelevant to determine whether or not something is a "school" as opposed to a "university," the unqualified/unqualifiable phrase "Filipino sense of the word" aside. Rmcsamson 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reindented): After reading the USC link (it's dead now, I'm replacing it), USC [claims to be the "oldest school"], yet UST claims to be the "oldest university". Whether or not a school and a university is the same is another thing. Since USC doesn't claim to be the oldest university, nor does UST claim it is the oldest university, the USC argument doesn't even have to be in the lead, it should be footnote. --Howard the Duck 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have hit the old sticking point again. Both institutions are universities today. Are they, ontologically, the same schools that were founded in 1595 and 1611? Yes. So if it's a question of who's older, San Carlos is clearly older. Granted, of course, that Santo Tomas has the oldest extant university charter, and that Santo Tomas was called a university before San Carlos was. But that line of thought in itself seems to bend the definition of what a university is (vis-a-vis, say, "school," "institution of higher learning," etc.). Like I've said, this has all been discussed before, and at least based on the previous discussions, it appears that the consensus was to allow both points to stand: that UST lays claim to its being the oldest university by virtue of an earlier charter, however, it is still younger than USC. The issue to settle here is the question of whether or not they're the same man-made things that were founded when they were even today. If not, then UST probably ought to stop saying "1611," since it would've been a different thing starting 1645 (making it younger than Letran, which fortunately for this discussion is still not a university). That's probably as neutral as you can get: uphold the status of UST's university charter as the oldest extant one in the Philippines and in Asia, but concede that it is this document, and not the institution it's supposed to be meant for, that is the oldest in the Philippines and in Asia (of course, whether or not the actual document still exists may be the subject of yet another discussion). Any way you look at it, the oldest surviving institution in the Philippines and in Asia which is a university is the University of San Carlos. Rmcsamson 18:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But the cited source is clear:

UST is the oldest university
USC is the oldest school.

Since USC doesn't dispute/challenge UST's statement that UST is the oldest university. UST doesn't challenge/dispute USC's statement that USC is the oldest school. So the sentence clarifying USC's position, in the lead no less, seems out of place. So the current sentence that we have:

and claims to be the oldest existing university in the Philippines and in Asia,[1] although this is disputed by the University of San Carlos in Cebu City, which was founded in 1595 but was granted university charter in 1948.

Is wrong because:

The source cited for UST's statement doesn't claim, but affirms.
The source cited for USC's statement doesn't dispute UST's position.

Again, unless someone adds a citation that UST "claims" (a direct quote) that they are the oldest university, and USC disputes that claim of beong the oldest university it is wrong. --Howard the Duck 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the oldest university should go to San Carlos and as far as this argument goes... both institutions were the oldest in Asia... and in fact, the Philippines is the only Asian country with a university in the 17th, 18th, 19th Centuries and even before the Second World War... -- peads 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is their website they are the oldest school, not the oldest university. --Howard the Duck 02:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, a distinction is being drawn where there is none. Are these universities the same things founded in 1595 and 1611? Yes. There is no ontological distinction between then and now. And between 1595 and 1611, which came first? The obvious answer is 1595. The sources cited are, again, non-neutral sources. They're unreliable. Rmcsamson 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The best sources for these types of info are the official website themselves. What other source would be appropriate? I'm tagging down the USC statement with {{fact}} because it is not what the source says. We'd have to stick to what the source says. The USC source says USC became a university in 1948. --Howard the Duck 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A distinction is being drawn where there is none. The source is clear: USC is the oldest in the Philippines. Until the question of ontology which I have posed is properly settled, I'm going to keep reverting. The best sources are NOT the official websites. These sources are non-neutral, and their neutrality is suspect. Take them with a grain of salt. Rmcsamson 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, then Cornell University, a feauted article, where much of the info is derived from the official website, is in violation of NPOV? A school and a university are two different things. Again, the cited source for UST says they are the oldest university, with no word "claim". The USC source says "school", not "university". Reverting won't help, what is needed is a source that says USC is the "oldest university." with a direct quote. Or you can slap the page with {{NPOV}}. --Howard the Duck 03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The question which ought to be asked is if USC and UST are NOT universities today, and if they are NOT the same things established in the years they were established. There being no ontological difference with regard to THAT matter, then USC is still the same San Idelfonso, and was therefore founded in 1595. 1595 came before 1611. With regard to the Cornell example, its being a Featured Article is irrelevant. There are other sources which point to San Carlos being founded in 1595. The whole issue can easily be resolved by saying that UST has the oldest extant university charter. Pendng resolution, the current edit seems to suffice. Rmcsamson 12:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How about saying that among, the present universities, UST was first to be granted a university charter? --Howard the Duck 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now THAT's a weasel statement. It tends to mislead the reader into thinking that UST was the first to be granted a university charter. It's common knowledge that it wasn't UST. But UST's got the OLDEST existing one, and that statement's clear as day. Rmcsamson 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you misread my statement, it says, among present universities, UST was the first to be granted a university charter. --Howard the Duck 02:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I said it "tends to mislead." The clearer, most neutral, and most factually-accurate phrasing is that "UST has the oldest extant university charter." Rmcsamson 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove "extant", since oldest means it must be existing. You can't be the oldest when you're dead. --Howard the Duck 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cute, but it tends to mislead. Rmcsamson 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But for the ordinary reader who doesn't know the meaning of "extant" or is leisurely browsing this would think that UST has the oldest, even the first university. But I'm fine with this already. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of addressing that particular concern. Rmcsamson 18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you place that at the history section. I kinda looks out of place in the lead. --Howard the Duck 05:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! Funny Howard! :) --Noypi380 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

UST or USC as the oldest university

This discussion was transferred from Talk:University of Santo Tomas to Talk:University of San Carlos :) --Noypi380 10:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

210.213.191.146 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)raul

UST's standing at the THES-QS rankings

Should we include it in the article? --Mithril Cloud 13:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How credible is this ranking system? --Howard the Duck 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but, it was reported in the local news and was even featured by De La Salle University-Manila in their newsletter, while Ateneo de Manila's adminstration gave a response to it . --Mithril Cloud 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The ranking system employed by THES has been the subject of much criticism, particularly with regard to its methodology. Rmcsamson 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So is it a good idea of adding that here? --Howard the Duck 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's relevant, I guess. A lot of major universities' articles don't even bother with rankings, since there's no fixed quantification or definition of "academic excellence" anyway. Rmcsamson 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't relevant, then there would be no reason to add it to the articles concerned. How would we know if it is relevant anyway? --Mithril Cloud 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's useful information that ought to be included in an encyclopedia? Rmcsamson 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely this ranking has a lot of flaws. How can UST be ranked lower than the 3 other Philippine Universities (with all due respect to the 3 other Universities ) when UST graduates top the different licensure examinations yearin and year out inspite of turning out the most number of graduates in every field or profession. Aside from this, UST has high overall passing perecentages in these board exams.It is also a fact that UST has produced the leaders in every field or profession and its graduates include Saints, Presidents, chief justices, world-class Physicians, architects, engineers, accountants, businessmen, members of the clergy, scientists, artists, literary giants, and athletes.UST is part of the long history of the Philippines. It is steeped in tradition and rich in history. UST is the only Royal and Pontifical University in this country. Surely, a university that can churn out these kind of products must have a time tested program for each discipline, a curriculum that combines faith and reason, always in pursuit of the truth with love, compassion, and a commitment to excellence. THe organizers of this company ranking the universities worldwide, must surely have omitted the more important and significant characteristics and true credentials of the University of Santo Tomas.I hope that this glaring error will be corrected in the future, otherwise this worldwide ranking will lose its credibility because many authorities in the academe worldwide are knowledgeable and are aware of the standard of Santo tomas University in the Philippines.

We're asking if it should be included in the article, not whether if its accurate or not. --Howard the Duck 04:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lorenzo Ruiz is a Thomasian?

Hi. Kindly pardon my ignorance but is Lorenzo Ruiz a UST alumnus? I understand that he studied with the Dominicans at the Binondo Church, serving as a scribe and altar boy in the early years of his life. However, I couldn't seem to find sources that can support that he did study at the UST. Can anyone please shed some light? Thanks. { PMGOMEZ } 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried looking for this information, too, and I can't find this either, so in the meantime I tagged it as unsourced. However, IMO, this information about San Lorenzowould be true if and only if UST (or, more specifically, its direct, historical predecessor) was the only Dominican school and hence was the school he would have most likely attended. As it goes, based on what is currently written, it's presently unclear if San Lorenzo's Binondo school and the original UST are one and the same school. ~~(I'll try to check the Vatican website if they have more information about this in San Lorenzo's "official" profile.)~~ Negative...there's too little information in San Lorenzo's Vatican bio. --- Tito Pao 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, UST and Letran were the two Dominican schools at that time... --Howard the Duck 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that UST and Letran were the two Dominican schools at that time but it seems that no concrete records show Lorenzo attending either. Did he even have formal schooling? { PMGOMEZ } 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Can somebody give a reason for the proposed merger? I'll remove it if no one comments further. --Howard the Duck 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It only has a short description and a list of courses offered? --Mithril Cloud 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's my plan a long time ago to have an article for each college and faculty, but I can't find enough refs and my UST pamphlet that I received during my H.S. days is gone. --Howard the Duck 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag seeing as it's been there since February 2007 with no real consensus, and each faculty seems to have their own page. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint Raymunds Building Photo

I have walked the halls of what I used to call the Commerce Building (St. Raymunds de Peñafort) for more than the usual 4 years and I mastered every corner of it but that was decades ago. I wonder if the Faculty of Commerce is still located on top of that building, please enlighten me. If so, could I suggest of including "Commerce" in the photo caption of the building? Thanks! Fddfred 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Commerce is still on top of us Artlets, but the Accountancy students are now at the new building at the front of USTH. --Howard the Duck 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

While it is nice to have more pictures in the article, it seems that all new images placed have questionable copyright status. --Mithril Cloud 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, there's metadata so there's a high chance of legitimacy... ----Howard the Duck 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet there's also a high chance that the uploader did not take those pictures. --Mithril Cloud 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well anyone can take pics of the UST campus since it's open to the public; it'll be deleted soon though, they don't have tags, that'll remove your misery, lol. --Howard the Duck 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unitas (ISSN 0041-7149)

Colleagues, we are looking for an article from Unitas: A Quarterly of the Arts and Sciences (Santo Tomas--ISSN 0041-7149). The article is:

Lea-Katharina Steller: Ferdinand Blumentritt (In: Unitas. Quarterly Scholarly Journal of the Univ. of Santo Tomas. (Vol. 79, No. 4, Oct. 2006 pp.??), Manila/Philippines, 2006, ISSN 0041-7149).

The record I found does list 50+ libraries as owning this title, but I am having difficulty finding a library that owns the 4.(Oct-Dec.) 2006 issue. Thanks for any assistance you can give us. (K.V. Agics, Collections for Research into Sudeten German Minority, Hungary) Only privat mail, please! --Bajor 10:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the copyrighted images need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 07:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That'll be fairly easy... --Howard the Duck 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the other ones, but Image:USTHS Logo.jpg still needs one. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I might as well remove that, IMHO. It'll be better served at University of Santo Tomas High School. --Howard the Duck 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake UST Seal

The bona fide UST seal can be found in the UST website www.ust.edu.ph. Notice the differences on the cross. Please change it, I don't know how to. Thank You. Pampi1010 10:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)pampi1010 November 3, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pampi1010 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the "real" one so we can compare? --Howard the Duck 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link: http://www.ust.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=240&Itemid=77 If it doesn't work, the original seal can be found in the Web Administration section of the aforementioned website. Thank you very much. Pampi1010 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)pampi1010, 3 November 2007.

Actually there are lots of differences between that image and the file we have. What you can do is to click the image, then look for "Upload a new version of this file" then upload it (you'd have to save the image first on your PC.) --Howard the Duck 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has already been replaced with the one found on the UST website -Mk32 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UST Growling Tigers Small.png

Image:UST Growling Tigers Small.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

what is UST all about?

what is UST all about? why UST is popular unlike other school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.197.59 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"....the Dominican fathers bought land at the Sulucan Hills....??" I thought the land was a donation and covered by a Deed of Donation? Is this an accurate statement? Isn't it a fact that the land is still owned by a certain Francesca Bayot? That the land can only be used for non-stock, non-profit activities?Kalibkib rollie (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aetas program

I added this since it is only UST who has this NOTABLE education to our lowly Aetas: University of Santo Tomas announced that it will continue on June, 2008, its 1999 distance education project for Aetas, administered by "para-teachers." 5 sitios in Bamban, Tarlac – Mabilog, Malasa, Haduan, San Martin, and Santa Rosa – are now UST's partner communities, where non-formal classes through 2-way radio are held, on subjects of "environmental conservation, livelihood, health, responsible parenthood, and community development, and programs of learning how to read and write, understanding legal documents about ancestral domain and value of their crops."www.gmanews.tv, UST to continue distance education project for Aetas --Florentino floro (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

95th Rector

UST is currently headed by its 95th rector, former Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chairman (2004), Fr. Rolando dela Rosa, 54, who will be formally installed in the June 10, 2008 "Misa de Apertura".GMA NEWS.TV, University of Sto. Tomas to install new rector June 10--Florentino floro (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

UST is the oldest school in the Philippines

yes, i study in UST but in any other school in the Philippines it says that UST is the oldest school

DarknovaXIV (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

^=^ sHadowsCythe ^=^

Not really. It can claim the oldest university since it became one first among the existing universities still running. --Howard the Duck 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

        UST IS THE a school that is very famous , many student allowed to success in life because of this school

Image copyright problem with File:Varsi.jpg

The image File:Varsi.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:University of Santo Tomas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This initial review will be a high level review looking at the big picture aspects of the article. Once work on this has been completed I will dig into the content of the article and hold its quality up to the GA Criteria.

Per WP:Lead the lead should encompass a summary of all aspects of the article. I don't see anything in the lead about the current research going on at the school, also student life and publications are not addressed in the lead. The lead also contains a one sentence paragraph (stub), which shouldn't be in a GA, please expand or combine.
Here [3] is a list of all the web site references. The red links are dead links, and there are many of them. They will need to be repaired.
There is no reference in the info box.
There is a ^{[citation needed]} template at the end of the History section dating back to October 2008, this needs to be addressed.
Any main article tag that is a red link should be removed, see The University Seal section.
There are citation needed tags in both the Foreign Corporations and Consortia, and Membership in Organizations sections. These will need to be addressed.
Many of the references have the website title and accessdate but no publisher, there should be the website publisher as a bare minimum along with the title and accessdate. Work, author, and date are other good items to have in the references. Some refs like 44, 50, and 52 don't even have a title and two don't have accessdates. The formatting of the reference section needs a thorough edit.
The Postgraduate studies sub-section is a one sentence paragraph. This needs to be expanded or eliminated.

There are quite a few issues here just in a high level review that need to be addressed before I can really dig into a thorough review of the article. I will hold the article for a week in order to allow work to be done. I will notify interested projects and editors and please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. H1nkles (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some work has been done on the article since the review but I do not feel that the work addresses the issues laid out here. The most important omission are the 25 dead links in the references section. I will have to delist at this time. Please renominate when the article is ready. H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Profit or Non-Profit

What is the University of Santo Tomas? A profit or Non-profit Organization?

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[1] UST General Information UST.edu.ph Accessed August 6, 2006

[2] About USC USC.edu.ph Accessed August 6, 2006

[1]

[2]