Talk:Ateneo de Manila University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleAteneo de Manila University was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
January 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 23, 2010Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


If you are attending or had attended the Ateneo de Manila University, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{User UAdMU}}, to display this on your userpage:
ADMUThis user is or was an Atenean.
Atenista 'to! OBF!
AdMU seal.jpg

/summary -This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data.--Jondel 01:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The facts in the summary are incomplete. Rmcsamson 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pls understand this is not the article but a template for other language versions. I've already done some translations. But will do more tranlations.--Jondel 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am concerned about the CONTENT that was edited. The facts are incomplete, and therefore the summary is inaccurate. The edit which I put is more accurate, and has bases in such material facts as centers of excellence, etc. Rmcsamson 06:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's open now. --Jondel 06:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another matter of concern is NPOV. Will such a statement, "It is known for its programs in..." be ""conversant with this standard? If not, it may be better to eliminate those statements from ALL the schools' summaries. Rmcsamson 06:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The target readers are not filipinos. It will give a guide to foreigners /non-filipinos. I feel that there would be no disputes with those statements and they are generally accepted(?) .e.g. Filipinos go to Ateneo and UP for Law, UP and UST for medicine, many government officials are from UP and Ateneo(?). If it is POV then OK , delete.--Jondel 06:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the case, then my edit of the summary would have served as a better guide, since I can also say it's "generally accepted." There's the risk there.Rmcsamson 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Since this will be initial versions,take the best 'risk with generally accepted statements.--Jondel 06:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A lot of this information appears to be copywrited, and the degree offerings are unencyclopedic. TheCoffee 07:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amen. It looks lifted straight from a brochure.

I made some substantial changes to somehow upgrade the quality of the article and so far deleted some non-encyclopedic entries.

Repaired your "substantial changes." Will edit the degree entries.


also, compared with other articles on schools and universities (e.g. UST and De La Salle), this article contains information that does not concern the school. The other school articles are in true encyclopedia form, talk about the school itself. This one seeems to promote the school as a major player in major events, when in fact the event is widely participated by several sectors of society and by other schools.....very arrogant and elitist writing139.130.237.18 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed portions that are blatant promotional material, and reworded several parts to sound less commercial. Some changes include the removal of adjectives which imply favor with Ateneo, and the removal of references to "the Ateneo" in favor of "Ateneo," so as not to sound elitist. I have also removed the terribly biased section on the elegance of Marian blue.

I would like to eventually remove even the phrases with adjectives that skirt the borders of objectivity, such as "Moro is the largest gymnasium in the Philippines" in favor of more concrete phrases such as "Moro measures so-and-so meters."

Some of the more blatantly obvious non-NPOV sections include: The whole Mission-Vision part. The section on the Blue Eagle--it sounds pretty biased to me. The section on the Cheering tradition--this is difficult to make encyclopedic without deleting most of it.

I will try to continue tomorrowm, but spotting the non-NPOV sentences is a difficult task, and I will have undoubtedly missed many things. Please help us out. :)

Migs 13:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will need to note that the section on Blue and White is in fact, neutral compared to previous revisions. Marian blue is an official school color. So is white.

The official usage of the word "Ateneo," as dictated by official university standards, uses "the" before "Ateneo."

In the meantime, I am restoring the previous revision.

Rmcsamson 14:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... I was worried that "the Ateneo" might be the correct usage after all. The part about Marian Blue still really seems to tilt the article in Ateneo's favor, though, with all the adjectives that assign to Ateneo an implicit greatness. Ok, for now, after you restore it, I'll go and restore mine, but I'll leave in the use of "The Ateneo" as well as the part about Marian Blue until we can get more input about those parts. Migs 14:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears you have done that already. Thanks, and thanks for truncating that tremendously long article on the school colors. :) Migs 14:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, Migs. Here's some stuff that can perhaps help you:

If you read the article on the school name, you'll probably figure why "the Ateneo" has been the official usage until now. It's because of quirks of translation.

However, there has been need for some clarification with regard to how the name is used. Perhaps this snippet from a stylebook can help:

"Ateneo. Popular name of Jesuit institutions of learning in the Philippines. Spanish form of the Latin word Atheneum, which the Dictionary of Classical Antiquities defines as the name of the “first educational institution in Rome” where “rhetoreticians and poets held their recitations.” Fr. James Meany, S.J. further explains that this name is derived from a Greek temple dedicated to Athena, the goddess of wisdom, where the Encyclopedia Britannica says “poets and men of learning were accustomed to meet and read their productions.”

The name Ateneo was adopted by the Escuela Municipal de Manila in 1865, becoming the Ateneo Municipal de Manila. The Spanish roots of the word therefore present a dilemma.

If the word is treated as a Spanish word, references to the school become appropriate renditions of “el Ateneo,” or literally, “the school.” Therefore, the use of “the” before the word Ateneo is appropriate. Thus, the common usage, “the Ateneo” can stand and be used liberally, as in

Jose Rizal graduated from the Ateneo with a degree in the arts. As a University, the Ateneo de Manila seeks to preserve….

However, in the Philippines, the name Ateneo is not merely a common Spanish noun, and is recognized as the official title of Jesuit institutions of higher learning. Thus, to say that one is attending classes at Ateneo is also appropriate. The use of “the” also becomes inappropriate at times, as in

Ateneo students often meet in the cafes along Katipunan Avenue."

"When mentioned for the first time, the full name Ateneo de Manila University should be used. Subsequent references can use the full name, or the abbreviated form Ateneo de Manila. When there are no other Ateneos involved, it can be referred to as the Ateneo. Otherwise, always add the qualifier de Manila for clarification. Not doing so would be an unjustified act of hubris.

Abbreviation into the acronyms ADMU or ADM is undesirable and should be avoided."

"The official title of the University is Ateneo de Manila University. The school name is Ateneo de Manila. The school's 'nickname' is Ateneo, and should only be referred to as 'the Ateneo' if it is clear that it is the Ateneo de Manila that is being talked about. Otherwise, usage of the school name (Ateneo de Manila) should be used prior to just 'the Ateneo.'"

Rmcsamson 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woah, that's awesome, in particular, the bit about the Spanish roots. I was only aware of the Greek roots previously. Thanks, I love learning etymologies of words. --Migs 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tried editing the other sections in terms of breadth, depth, and NPOV. I need help with formatting, though. Rmcsamson 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To build on this 14 year old discussion, I've edited the text, and substantially reduced the usage of "the" in line with current practice. I've shifted in my own opinion regarding this, over the years, as I used to be obsessive with the 'the', but now realize that when used with the nickname too often, it only reinforces the public impression of arrogance. Alifigueroa (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article is also in need of formatting changes, and perhaps some rewordings to make it sound less awkward. In particular, I notice a lack of several commas, quotation marks, and italicizations, where there should be some. Many Latin words, for instance, do not have quotes or italics on them. I will try to fix this tomorrow, but please feel free to correct these things yourselves.

Migs 13:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted alumni and professors[edit]

Joker Arroyo was listed under "Noted alumni and professors", but I couldn't find anything that connected him to Ateneo so I just removed him. According to this, he studied at UP. TheCoffee 14:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Most of the section on "Culture, sports, and traditions" was copy-pasted from and has been removed. Coffee 18:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close reading will reveal that the section on culture, sports, and traditions, while taken from, has already been revised. I am restoring the section.Rmcsamson 20:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I largely wrote the material on the Ateneo site. It's open source. Although I've updated it before posting here. Big problem is that it's still promo text.

The old seal displayed (admu_seal.png) is inaccurate, so I will restore the version I revised and uploaded. Ali


I have added the section "Departments" in the external links. Kindly add other departments in the insitution. The list has been sorted alphabetically given the subject-name of the department (i.e. "Chemistry" for the Department of Chemistry, "Japanese" for the Japanese Studies Program, and "Mathematics" for the Mathematics Department]).

--P. Rodriguez 06:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you classify departments, when even subunits such as the grade school and high school have departments with the same names?Rmcsamson 06:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the Ateneo de Manila University link, there should be four sub-bullets of the four schools (School of Science and Engineering ["SOSE"], School of Management ["SOM"], School of Humanities ["SOH"], and School of Social Sciences ["SOSS"]), and under which are the various departments of each school.
I believe having an index of the departments will be really helpful as it will point the reader to specific areas of the Ateneo, when possibly he or she just arrived at the main Ateneo article page.
--P. Rodriguez 10:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The appropriate classification might be, Professional Schools, Loyola Schools, High School, Grade School. And then divide accordingly into subdepartments. Anyway, there is now a separate page for the Loyola Schools.Rmcsamson 11:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WAY too many external links[edit]

Whoa, we need to cut down drastically on external links. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. There are currently 36 links. 8-10 should be more than enough. Please see the guideline at Wikipedia:External links. Coffee 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I'll restore the library links. Those are pretty important. Also, since the yearbook is the University annual, I'll have to restore that too. I'll try to cut away the rest.Rmcsamson 16:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Aegis site is just an announcements site for Batch 2006, and it's of no use to Wikipedia readers. The departments section had to go since there must be at least 50 departments and all those sites can be reached through anyway. The official site is practically a portal to all the offical sites, so cut back on any subpages of unless they're notable on their own. Coffee 16:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Coffee has cited, the links to the Ateneo subpages make the article look like a webdirectory. As I see it, a link to the main university site (from where the other links can be reached) should be sufficient. Only very notable subpages should be listed separately. Compare other articles on universities, such as Harvard#External links. --Mercurio 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ateneo a Royal and Pontifical University?[edit]

Royal maybe... but pontifical? Circa 1900 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strictly speaking, the Ateneo de Manila is NOT Royal and Pontifical. It traces its roots to the educational tradition Universidad de San Ignacio (Not as an institution, though. The roots of the Ateneo are the Escuela Municipal, whereas the San Ignacio was a university established several hundred years before the Jesuit takeover of the Escuela Municipal.), which was the first university in the Philippines (and arguably, Asia), and the first royal and pontifical university in the country (and in Asia).Rmcsamson 08:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Royal is recognized by the King of Spain(?) (certainly not by the King of Saudi A.) . Pontifical comes from the Vatican(?) Different sources for these titles?--Jondel 10:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then this paragraph needs to be clarified:
In 1621, Pope Gregory XV through the Archbishop of Manila authorized the San Ignacio to confer degrees in theology and arts and elevated it to a university. In 1623, King Philip IV of Spain confirmed the authorization, making the school both a pontifical and a royal university, and the very first university in the Philippines and in Asia.
Circa 1900 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's clear enough. It clearly indicates the San Ignacio. This is relevant to the article because the San Ignacio is the reason why the people of Manila asked the government to have the Jesuits take over the Escuela Municipal, which is now the Ateneo de Manila. What clarification does it need?Rmcsamson 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ateneo de Manila, not only strictly speaking, is in no way a declared pontifical university at any point in its history (that properly began in 1859), comparable to the case of Gregorianum, Urbaniana, Seraphicum, Angelicum, Sanctae Crucis, or even the University of St. Thomas in Manila. The inclusion in the Ateneo de Manila's history section of an episode in the early Jesuit educational enterprise in the Philippines where the defunct "Universidad de San Ignacio" may figure seems to make for the Ateneo a feeble connection to the titles "royal and pontifical", which an extant Philippine university entitles itself with (as supported by a Spanish monarch's decree and a pope's constitution formally granting to it the titles respectively). I do not see any substantial or highly significant need to include in the article the section "Early History" for it stands apart as early history of the Jesuits in the Philippines and not properly of the Ateneo de Manila's. It does not even introduce a concrete causal link between the demise of Colegio de San Ignacio and the rise of Escuela Municipal de Manila which is the undeniable forerunner of the Ateneo de Manila. The "19th Century" section is the one that really tells of the definitive beginning of the Ateneo de Manila University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafalgarhouse (talkcontribs) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Early History" section may be removed without sacrificing details necessary to understand the history of the Ateneo de Manila University . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafalgarhouse (talkcontribs) 06:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on traditions, culture, etc.[edit]

I've restored the section on culture, sports, and traditions, and have restructured it so that there are three separate sections on culture, sports, and traditions. This content is important to talk about why this particular university is unique in all others. In the meantime, I am not listing the separate articles created (there was another one on the university's history). These articles can probably be expanded to be more in-depth and even anecdotal.Rmcsamson 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This entry is in dire need of images.Rmcsamson 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entry for the Ateneo definitely needs new photos, since most of them are not updated.Ian.cadelina 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article length[edit]

I think this article is too long (51KB). It would be better if some parts of this article be divided into separate sections. The history and tradition articles should have links from the main article, not the other way around. Also, i think the Blue Eagle and Cheering traditions should be removed since they're already included in the traditions article. -- Mithril Cloud 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article length's something that used to worry me, until I realized that Wikipedia's full of long articles anyway. This one's just like the articles of other universities (some are even longer). It isn't patterned after any of the articles from the Philippines, since those are rather insufficient. This is closer to, say, Boston College's article. I've restored the history and culture and traditions sections since every school article (especially if one refers to the WikiProject:Schools thing) ought to have a section on history, and what sets it apart from other articles. It has been this completeness of information which helped this article be listed as a Good Article. Rmcsamson 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying that the history/culture/traditions sections should be removed. What i've seen in several good and featured education articles is that they have the history/culture/traditions in the main article but also has its own more in-depth separate article which contained more information for further reading. The main article's sections features a good summary with highlights while the divided articles features everything else one would need to know about that specific section. But if you think that the current state of the article is fine then so be it. Although what it really needs right now is pictures though. --Mithril Cloud 12:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree about the lack of pictures. I'm still trying to source them. Rmcsamson 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about visiting the Ateneo and manually take relevant pictures? --Mithril Cloud 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lacking time to do that at the moment. I've got a stash of images here, actually. I'm just trying to secure permission to use them too.Rmcsamson 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PAASCU paragraph in the intro[edit]

I think the PAASCU accreditation in the intro is kinda out of place. As someone who's a bit familiar with university rivalries, the PAASCU accreditation mention at the start of the article seems to be an insecure response to another university's boasting of its own accreditation. Surely ADMU's notability can be better stated than just a PAASCU accreditation? --seav 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This sort of comment presupposes two things: an existence of so-called "university rivalries," as well as an irrational insecurity that has to be addressed. Neither, however, hold, especially upon examination of the rest of the article. Rmcsamson 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a university rivalry. That fact can't be ignored. Second, why only PAASCU accreditation? Is PAASCU accreditation that important really, in light of all other kinds of recognition? The PAASCU mention almost seems to be like how eTelecare proudly claims to be the 2005 Employee of the Year (as certified by the PMAP). What about CHED's CoDs and CoEs? Ateneo has them.
The CODs and COEs are mentioned. They are also mentioned in the main article for the Loyola Schools. Is there anything else?Rmcsamson 12:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ateneo the first to be connected to the Internet?[edit]

"In 1994, the Ateneo was the first Philippine school on the Internet"

Any sources for that? writes:

  • In March 1994, De La Salle University is the first school to be connected via leased line to the wide area network of PLDT. Followed by Ateneo De Manila University.
  • In March 29, 1994, at the University of San Carlos (USC), Talamban, Cebu, Philippines was linked to the world via the Internet. It got connected to Sprintlink, which at the time was carrying the backbone for NSFNet. writes:

-- Mithril Cloud 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be a conflict between the current entry and the sources you cited. After reviewing another resource (, it appears that the source used to write the current entry was faulty. Thanks for the heads-up. Rmcsamson 11:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. --Mithril Cloud 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the DLSU-M website (

  • March 28, DLSU had full Internet connection. FTP, gopher, and web servers were configured and made accessible to the Internet. (blah blah blah) In October 15, registered gopher server to University of Minnesota (main gopher server in the Internet) December, created a Philippine web site, the first one located in the Philippines! The Information Technology Center also started using Linux servers this year. Gab kidzc 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benigno Aquino, Jr.[edit]

I don't get why an anon always replaces "Atenean" into "Bedan" (must be a Bedan hahaha). But on Wikipedia, an alumnus is a former student (so that includes people who are kicked out, dropped out, graduated, transferred into another school etc. Either that sentence should say "Atenean alumnus" or it should be removed. --Howard the Duck 09:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's nothing to discuss here, actually. Does Benigno Aquino, Jr. fit the description of an alumnus? Yes. Does the Ateneo de Manila University acknowledge him as an alumnus? Yes. Case closed. Rmcsamson 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it why the anon insists doing it his/her way. --Howard the Duck 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It offers a better description if Ninoy Aquino is described as a Bedan who studied in Ateneo, being a Bedan should take precedence since he actually graduated from this school and got a diploma as opposed to merely studying but not graduating....both can claim him as alumni but one should take proper precedence so as not to be deemed two cents... 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrelevant. Ninoy Aquino's attending San Beda is irrelevant to his attending the Ateneo, and moreso with regard to this article. How San Beda considers Ninoy as an alumnus of San Beda is also irrelevant with regard to this article. Rmcsamson 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree with Rmcsamson here, Ninoy was both an Atenean and a Bedan, since this is the Ateneo article, Ninoy as an Atenean will be preeminent here, while on the SBC article, Ninoy as a Bedan would be the one's that is prominent. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the October Medal really that of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel?[edit]

I am tempted to edit the part of the article which speaks of the October Medal as that of our Lady of Mount Carmel. But I am not sure, so I'd like to hear from others.

An inspection of the one being used today in October 2006 and when I was in the grade school back in the 1960s is clearly the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, more popularly known as Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal. See for example

Could the one who wrote that the Ateneo's October Medal is that of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel be referring to the October Medal before the 1960s? I am sure that today and for the past few decades, the Ateneo October Medal is the Medal of the Immaculate Conception attached to a blue ribbon -- which would make a lot of sense since the Immaculate Conception is the patroness of the school.

Vdejesus 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

˜˜˜˜ Today, Nov 12 2006, I noticed that someone changed the reference to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal. I am happy someone agrees with my suggested change.

At the same time, I hope whoever said it was Our Lady of Mount Carmel would e-mail me to tell me where he/she heard that the October Medal was a medal of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Perhaps you heard it from a reliable old alumnus? Perhaps before the 1960s, the medal really WAS that of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel? And then perhaps later on, the Miraculous Medal was the one used? That would be historically interesting.

But as the text stands today, I'm absolutely sure that for forty years now, the Ateneo October medal is that of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal which is otherwise called the Medal of the Immaculate Conception. [By the way, in recent years, Xavier School in San Juan also has an October Medal but the ribbon is blue and gold.]


-- vdejesus ˜˜˜˜

O Canada[edit]

To the person who has made the personal conclusion that the tune of O, Canada was based on the Magic Flute. Where is the reference pointing to this? Did the composer actually say so?

Also, you should remove the bias about Ateneo adopting the melody before Canada adopting their national anthem. The facts are: O, Canada was composed in 1880, well before Ateneo adopted 'Song of Mary', and had been known to Canadians since then, whether or not it was their national anthem. So to imply that Ateneo is justified in copying the melody because they were first to make their song official is misleading and biased.

From the O, Canada website: "By the time the World War broke out in 1914, "O Canada" was the best known patriotic song in Canada, edging out "The Maple leaf Forever" and others less well-known today."

Where is the reference that the melody was in the public domain when 'Song of Mary' was composed? In wikipedia and in the Official O, Canada website, it was only in 1980, when O, Canada was adopted as the national anthem was the melody declared to be in the public domain. The way the entry is written, it seemed like the melody was already in free-for-all before that time. Where are the other popular marching tunes that you are referring to?

Please change it. (I've been trying to change it, but you keep on reverting it to the old erroneous text). You cannot invent facts about the Canadian national anthem here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a brochure.


I didn't write the text which made the reference to The Magic Flute. But this is what can be dug up:
You may wish to refer to the following entry from the Wikipedia article on The Magic Flute:
The theme "March of the Priests" is very similar to, and may have inspired, Calixa Lavallée's music for the Canadian national anthem "O Canada". In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta Iolanthe, Sir Arthur Sullivan included a musical homage to the Queen of the Night's aria when introducing the character of the Queen of the Fairies.
Careful reading of the text in the official O, Canada article will show that the anthem (O, Canada, with the melody and the lyrics which were adopted) was declared to be in the public domain. The melody was composed before that. Compositions and pieces enter the public domain 50 years after the owner (in this case, Lavallee) dies. The melody which was therefore adopted was already well within the public domain. The Canadian National Anthem entered the public domain in 1980 when it was adopted through the National Anthem Act, years after the melody which was used for it was already within the public domain.
Also, the paragraph about the Ateneo's adopting the melody before it became the national anthem of Canada is simply stating a matter of fact.

Rmcsamson 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO, phrase should be added that Canadians have been singing O Canada even though it hasn't been adopted as an official anthem. --Howard the Duck 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On careful reading, you will find this text at the official website:
"There was no trouble with the music copyright which had by now descended to Gordon V. Thompson. They were willing to sell for $1, but the heirs of Judge Weir objected to the changes in the original version. Since Judge Weir died in 1926, the Weir version would not come into public domain until 1976. There was some doubt that the Weir family had legal grounds for objection since Thompson's apparently held copyright on both music and English words. However the committee preferred to settle the matter amicably if at all possible. The Government acquired the rights from G.V. Thompson in 1970."
What this tells me is, someone named Gordon V. Thompson held the copyright to the music and lyrics to the O, Canada and it was purchased by the Canadian government in 1970.
Furthermore, this text:
"There is no copyright on the melody and the words of the national anthem, the Act having declared them to be in the public domain. It is possible, however, to copyright the arrangements made to the melody."
The "Act" was signed on July 1, 1980.
Also, the wiki entry to the Magic flute says "may have inspired", while the original Ateneo entry (which I noticed was just changed) said: "The tune is adapted from Calixa Lavallée's hymn "O Canada", composed in 1880, which was itself adapted from "The March of the Priests" from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's The Magic Flute (Die Zauberflaute)."
Adding references to O, Canada possibly being unoriginal is not necessary in the discussion of 'Song of Mary'. The argument (again not necessary) that the melody was procured by Reuter from the public domain is also erroneous and should be removed. The statement of fact that Ateneo officially adopted their alma mater "first" is misleading because it is used in the context that O, Canada was not a copyrighted song, and it fails to mention all the points which I have discussed here.


I fail to appreciate the argument. The facts are simple: The Ateneo, through Col. Campana (not Reuter) adapted the melody of O, Canada for the Song for Mary. This adaptation was done BEFORE Canada's legislature passed the Act adopting O, Canada (in the form wherein it featured BOTH lyrics and a melody) as Canada's national anthem in 1980. That much is clearly stated in the article.
Reading the cited text above shows that this Gordon V. Thompson owned the copyright to the "Weir version" of O, Canada as the anthem (lyrics + melody), which is what Canada purchased. It does not say that the song as Lavallee composed it was the one outside the public domain.
Reading the article entry, it's a response to the possible point that the Ateneo copied Canada's national anthem when the Song for Mary was composed. O, Canada was not yet Canada's national anthem when the melody was adapted. That's pretty clear.
Finally, the melody was not copied. It was adapted. An adaptation is different from a copy. That's fair use.Rmcsamson 18:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After rereading the entry, perhaps this edit may be more appropriate in order to address the concerns raised by Kidflashx:
The tune is adapted from Calixa Lavallée's hymn "O Canada", a popular Canadian marching tune composed in 1880, which may have been adapted from "The March of the Priests" from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's The Magic Flute (Die Zauberflöte). It is commonly believed that Ateneo merely copied the music of Canada's national anthem. However, "O Canada" became Canada's national anthem only in 1980, three decades after the Ateneo de Manila adopted "A Song for Mary." Rmcsamson 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did Canadians start singing "O Canada" with gusto? Its like being gay, a person is a closet gay, but until he announces to the whole world that he's gay, he's still officially, a "man". --Howard the Duck 07:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove the blurb about Mozart because it is not necessary -- you are only trying to discredit O, Canada's originality -- a biased statement.
If Col. Campana and not Reuter adopted the melody -- then why isn't that even stated in this article??? This is what it says now: "However, with the campus' move from Padre Faura to Loyola Heights, the school adopted "A Song for Mary", written by Fr. James Reuter, as its graduation hymn." Apparently, it is more important to the maintainers of this article to try to prove that the song's melody wasn't copied really, than to tell the world the identity of the actual composer. (I cannot believe you used that factoid as an argument against me.)
Also, it is not necessary to discuss the copying controversy when it is already stated that the song was already an adaptation of... surprise! O, Canada. Is the melody of 'Song for Mary' a copy of the melody/music of 'O, Canada'? -- of course yes. That fact is not changed whether or not O, Canada became Canada's national anthem in 1980.
Just trim this section to the facts about the song and remove biased misleading statements. This song was composed by so and so, and adapted from this song. Period. And unless you can prove it, you cannot include your public domain statement. There is even no reference here to what year the song was actually composed.
This paragraph still needs fixing:

"The tune is adapted from Calixa Lavallée's hymn "O Canada", composed in 1880. It is commonly believed that Ateneo merely copied the music of Canada's national anthem. However, the song's melody was simply a popular marching tune in the public domain, and "O Canada" became Canada's national anthem only in 1980, three decades after the Ateneo de Manila adopted "A Song for Mary.""

1. First sentence: It states that the song was adapted from "O, Canada".

2. Second sentence: It states that people believe that the song was copied from Canada's national anthem. But this is, as stated in the first sentence "O, Canada". I don't know why this escapes you, but the melody of "O, Canada" in 1880 and in 1903 when the current LYRICS of "O, Canada" was written, did not change.

3. Third sentence: It states that the melody of the copied song is a popular marching tune and in the public domain -- I think you are referring to the melody of "O, Canada" which is Canada's national anthem -- in which case you need to verify your sources that it was indeed in the public domain when 'Song of Mary' adopted it. Stating that Ateneo was 'first' to make their song 'official' is useless, because you already established that the melody was indeed copied from... surprise! "O, Canada" -- whose melody did not change from the time it was composed, when it was officially made the national anthem and until now.

Also, please show us your references that Col. Campana/Reuter state that this was indeed an adaptation. If you don't know, do not put your inferences as fact here. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.


Edited the article. I hope it's acceptable now. Alifigueroa 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. This is almost exactly how I edited this article last week, but I was met with constant resistance.
"Inspired" -- oh well. A debate for some other time. At least now no facts are imagined (for O, Canada at least).

Clarification of the proper way to refer to the Patron(ess) of the Ateneo de Manila University[edit]

Greetings to all!

I have edited the article to read "the Blessed Virgin Mary under her title the Immaculate Conception, Maria Purissima, ...." rather than "Maria Purissima, Our Lady of the Immaculate Concepcion [sic]...."

It is inelegant and perhaps misleading to refer to Our Lady as "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception," because she =herself= is the Immaculate Conception. As she said in her apparitions in Lourdes, "I am the Immaculate Conception". The immaculate conception is she who was conceived without original sin in the womb of Mary's mother, whom apocryphal literature names St. Anne, Santa Ana. By the eternal merits of Christ, Mary was conceived without "macula," without "spot" or stain, immaculate -- stainless!

It is correct to speak of "The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady" but it is incorrect to speak of "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception." The Ateneo's patroness is "The Immaculate Conception," not "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception." As a matter of fact and perhaps of interest, the Official "Catalogus" of the Philippine Province of the Jesuits lists two names referring to the same school. On top of page 28, it reads "University of the Immaculate Conception BVM" and only below it does one find "Ateneo de Manila University". BVM is the abbreviation for "of the Blessed Virgin Mary," in Latin. In other words, the official religious name, as it were, of the Ateneo de Manila University is "The University of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary." [referring to her having been conceived by her mother, St. Anne!]

Ateneans may be interested to know that, in the same abovementioned Official Catalogus of the Philippine Jesuits, Ateneo de Naga University is also referred to as "University of St. Francis Xavier." The various Ateneo universities, in other words, sort of have a "religious name" each. Ateneo de Davao is "The University of the Assumption BVM".

Finally, let me share that it is a rather common error to think that Jesus is the referent of the phrase, "the Immaculate Conception." He of course was conceived without sin in Mary's womb. But this is by his own merits. The phrase, "the Immaculate Conception" refers not to Jesus being conceived without sin, but to his mother's having been conceived without sin, not through her own merits but "by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty Gd in view of the merits of Jesus Christ," (Ineffabilis Deus), Christ being the eternally contemporaneous Second Person of the Triune God. Excuse my emphasis and longish dwelling on this point. I merely want to make sure nobody thinks to undo the change I introduced and retype "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception."


-- vdejesus ˜˜˜˜

Ateneo-La Salle Rivalry[edit]

I'm compiling all of the scores of all Ateneo-La Salle games since 1924. Anybody can help out at User:Howard the Duck/Pinoy. --Howard the Duck 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The THES-QS rankings[edit]

Should we include it in the article? --Mithril Cloud 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if relevant. A lot of university articles don't even bother placing rankings. If they are to be placed here, the question is, what data should be included? The precise statistical data is available, as well as a response by the university administration with regard to the ranking. Rmcsamson 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In line with the review, this article will be undergoing over the next 48 to 72 hours. Updates and additional information may be added. Rmcsamson 12:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of this writing, I've added in-line citations and copyedited some of the text. The next edits will include an expansion of the lead, additional images, and updating section information. Rmcsamson 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA comment[edit]

For the article to maintain its GA status, the logos 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 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested pic[edit]

Can anyone upload a photo of the Blue Eagle Gym? --Howard the Duck 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AteneoBlueEagle.jpg[edit]

The image Image:AteneoBlueEagle.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. --23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is very important for readers and researchers, due to the need to know the rank in the world: In the 2008 global "Top 500" ranking, by The Times Higher Education Supplement and consultancy Quacquarelli Symonds (THES-QS), only 2 Philippine universities remained in the list: University of the Philippines (398th in 2007 from 299th in 2006), and Ateneo (451st from 484th). La Salle and UST dropped out of the Top 500 (519th and 535th, respectively).GMA NEWS.TV, RP universities get low rankings; La Salle, UST dropped out of Top 500--Florentino floro (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "aegisgeneral" :
    • The Ateneo Aegis (Official Yearbook)
    • Ateneo Aegis (official yearbook)

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ateneo watch[edit]

Although there is already a plastic watch to commemorate the 150 years of Ateneo, I think that there should be an official Ateneo watch made by TAG-Heuer. I just saw the online alumni store of Harvard which has for sale Harvard TAG-Heuer watches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    It is obvious that the article fails 1b, particularly as it relates to layout. There are several single-sentence paragraphs, single-paragraph sections, even a single-sentence section. There is excessive use of embedded lists, and far too many redlinks where is it not at all clear that the subjects are notable. The "Recent history" section is too long, and poorly structured. There is also a tendency towards excessive sourcing; 4-6 inline citations is not necessary when dealing with entirely uncontroversial facts. This makes the text hard to read, hard to edit, and bloats the size of the page.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are at least ten dead links. In addition to this, there are far too much reliance on self-published sources by the university, which can lead to problems with neutrality.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    t's hard to see that the seal should need to be described in such detail. Also see comments above on layout.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    As far as I can see at first glance, yes.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The "Campuses" section is a bit cramped with pictures, this is what Commons is for.
  7. Overall:
    This is just a preliminary review; if anyone decides to start revising the article within the next week, I will make a more thorough one. It will be quite a demanding task though, and can probably not be done in a hurry. Lampman (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per a request from User:Rmcsamson, I will elaborate a little on the issues raised above. This will be just an initial comment; the article will in any case need to be radically altered, so that a full review at the present point will be impossible:
  • List incorporation: The good Good Article criteria are quite clear that this is one of the MOS guidelines that need to be followed. It is impossible to give an exact answer to how many embedded lists is appropriate, but it is clear that this article (where the "Institution" section alone has seven) contains too many. A look at certain similar Featured articles, like University of California, Riverside or Georgetown University can give an idea of what is considered good practice on Wikipedia. Ask the questions: 1. Is this information really necessary to give the reader an understanding of the subject? 2. If yes: can it be re-written in prose form?
  • The layout guidelines must also be followed. These guidelines say, among other things: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose", and "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." Sections containing two to three paragraphs of c. 5–10 sentences each are to be preferred (the "Library system and Museums" is not too far off, though it contains a single-sentence paragraph.)
These comments are meant to explain further the objections raised above. Once these issues have been addressed, please contact me and I will give a more thorough review. Feel free to ask is there are any problems or issues of concern. Lampman (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section[edit]

I really think there are very few pictures in the History section. Doesn't the school have an entire archive of pictures from old times? Can't we put them here in the relevant sections? Thanks. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a good idea, but there may be issues regarding copyright. I'm sure some of the images are old enough to be in the public domain, but I don't know if they can just be released for posting here. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Early History section may be deleted because it is not substantially about the Ateneo de Manila. Rather, it pertains to the Jesuit educational mission before their suppression and expulsion from the Philippines. The Ateneo de Manila did not come about as a consequence of re-openning a previously established Jesuit school that closed down when the religious order went through suppression. Hence, there is no highly significant or concrete link between the sections Early History and 19th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafalgarhouse (talkcontribs) 09:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

I fail to see how this article is a hoax. There clearly is a university with this same. The only hoax is the CSD nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ateneo a research university?[edit]

What is the basis for laying claim to being a "research" university? The standard followed by the US universities (e.g. Harvard) is the Carnegie classification which requires at least 50 doctorate programs to qualify as a "research university." Ateneo graduate admissions lists no more than 13.-- (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


section should be severely trimmed or moved to its own article. but I don't support a standalone article because it is rather crufty and really full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ateneo de Manila 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ateneo de Manila 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:

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) 14:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ateneo de Manila 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:

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) 05:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

This page and its subarticles are in need of substantial copyright cleanup. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 13 for what I know so far. Many sections will need a substantial clean rewrite. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello The Banner and Patrick Cristiano, I have read the WP:UNIGUIDE, specifically under WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure, and it states that in the MOS:LEAD section of the article, "Individual notable alumni should be mentioned only in extraordinary cases; typically, statistics such as X Nobel laureates are preferred." and for Noted People, "For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.".

I agree that my writing of notable alumni in both the Lead and Alumnni sections are superfluous. I didn't know nor did I consult any guidelines prior. However, according to the guideline, having a concise list of notable alumni is not considered WP:PROMO. Moving forward, I would then like to edit it back into the article, following the guidelines with a neutral tone, and using some of the universities in WP:COLLEGE#Showcase articles as references. I would like to hear what your thoughts and feedback are on this and I hope we can come to an agreement as to how this will be written. Thank you. Codayoda (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I think it would be best if you first post your draft here in the talk page, so that we can give feedback on it before publishing. Thanks! signed, Pat talk 10:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]