Talk:University of Southern California/Archive 2

message: I just stumbled across the page and noticed that the marching band section appears to have been vandalized (unless the author has a very low opinion of the band for some reason). Just wanted to point that out.
Jcoggesh 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you were right.  I did the revert.  If you ever run across something like that in any article, don't hesitate to check the edit history for a suspicious edit and make the revert if its blatant.  Thanks for the heads up. --Bobak 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marching Band vandalized

message: As a current student at Purdue University, I was shocked to see our famed alumnus Neil Armstrong pictured on the USC page. I will not dispute that Mr. Armstrong received his Master's Degree from Southern California, but it was at Purdue that he studyed as an undergraduate and with Purdue he identifies himself as an alum. This is best reflected in this October's dedicating of the Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering, an event which he attended (alongside a Boilermaker football game) and during which a bronze statue of him was unveiled.
While mention of Mr. Armstrong on the page is acceptable, a full picture and the misleading cutline below it are not. Mr. Armstrong is and forever shall be connected with our lovely home on the Wabash. Thank you and Boiler Up!
- Max Vande Vaarst, freshman
:He has been featured prominently in USC television advertising as recently as last year (an add that featured him, George Lucas, John Wayne, etc), so he clearly considers himself an alum (of both) universities to allow his image used in such a way.  Its not uncommon for schools to have this sort of dual claim.  --Bobak (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Armstrong

message: Personally I feel that most of the athletics page is borderline hagiography of the SC sports program, especially compared with other athletics sections. Just as a comparison, look at how the USC page and the UCLA page describe great coaches: the USC page uses a lot of superlative adjectives talking about Dedeaux and Carroll, while the UCLA page simply says "all titles were won by Al Scates" when talking about volleyball. I know this is a minefield to tread on, comparing USC and UCLA (let it be known that I am a Mizzou fan), but it gets my point across.--ChicosBailBonds 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't really see too much to change.  I made some minor tweaks here and there, but the rest is fact-based so I have removed the tag.  If you take USC, UCLA and Stanford (and the rest of the Pac-10) you have the vast majority of NCAA championships.  Oddly enough, USC would have more NCAA championships if the NCAA handed out one in football :-) The UCLA sections are a little disappointing, I guess they need more Wikipedians!  --Bobak 00:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athletics section NPOV? 

message: The source cited is USNWR.  However, someone keeps substituting the WSJ ranking for the Marshall school instead, presumably because its ranking (10th) is much more flattering than the USNWR rating of 29th.  Let's not pick and choose only the good sides we want to show about USC.
:I agree it's not good to cherry-pick.  Of course, why not have both as long as one isn't too sketchy?  --Bobak 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone already came to that conclusion... no more "rabbit season, duck season" ranking wars :-) --Bobak 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduate Rankings 

message: The USC template at the bottom of all the USC pages I think is working well.  I copied it off of the Law School page and just now though realized that I have been pasting the template with "California" spelled wrong in the law school link.  It really isn't that noticable but it does need to be changed. 
Is there a way that either that can be changed without doing it one by one or else creating a template that is easier to use like the Pac 10 or the "Asso. of American Universities" have?
--Wd40gdw 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I just got dinged for vandalism (boo hoo) and threatened with banning (wtf?????) for adding a bit in about 'University of spoilt children' to the trivia section (yes, by a moderator who went to USC - I sense a gigantic conspiracy afoot, quite possibly involving mossad and the illuminati and flying wolves) - a slightly extreme reaction and I can't see why it shouldn't be there either - a lot of the article verges on the self-congradulatory as it is and for crying out loud trivia's trivia!
:There are no such things as moderators on Wikipedia.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to regurgitate childish information.  Besides, if you want a comparison: USC has more students on financial aid than UCLA, so you're about 25 years late on that even being remotely accurate.  For more reading, see WP:VANDAL, or maybe start with WP:WELCOME and work your way towards it.  Thank you. --Bobak 00:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I both know that there are dozens of negative nicknames for every major university in the US (especially those with athletic rivalries).  Should I try and add the ones I used to hear in High School or on athletic boards?  Here are a few popular ones: Stanford = Stanfurd (Cal's nickname for them); California = Kal; UCI = University of Chinese Immigrants; UCLA = ACLU/University of Caucasians Lost among Asians?  No, absolutely not: They're of no use in an encyclopedic article.  No argument.  Revert on site in any article.  --Bobak 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. To the extent that their might be criticism of demographics, it should be done in an informed and statistical tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimsonmaroon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Spoilt Children

message: Why do the pictures no longer have the sizes on them.  They are all now very small and to not fit properly??
--72.130.134.60 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images should only be specified to particular sizes for a very good reason. Because different users use different-sized screens at different-sized resolutions, a size that looks good on your screen may not look good on someone else's. Logged-in users can adjust thumbnail sizes in their preferences. User:Angr 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Angr: remember, some of us have very different screen settings so it's hard to pick something that will work for everyone in the Wikipedia's edit capacity. --Bobak 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of pictures 

message: In the undergraduate rankings section, it states that the School of International Relations is ranked "3rd."  The source it sites is the SIR's website.  The website states, however, that the school is merely the world's third oldest school of international relations, behind University of Wales, Aberystwyth and Georgetown University, respectively.  I believe the way in which the ranking is presented is not NPOV, and suggestes that the school was "ranked" in some sort of comprehensive survery, akin to US News.  Unfortunately, no such ranking exists for schools of international relations.  I will leave this open to comment/suggestions for a few days, but, in lew of any newly presented evidence, I do plan to erase this reference to the school of international relations from the USC page in a few days. Trojan traveler 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a safe bet.  I don't know where that number is coming from, either.  Incidently, Foreign Policy magazine did do a ranking of graduate IR programs, USC was not in the top-20 (coincidently, that particular issue is used as the cover scan for the article about said magazine). --Bobak 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never been able to find undergraduate rankings for IR programs in the US. But actually if you look at the Foreign Policy article , USC's IR program is 19th for Master's programs. It goes unranked in PhD programs. Woogums 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, sir! (on SIR? --LOL)... I left my copy of that article at home and I had in the back of my head the 'SC did get one ranking, but I figured I would read it tonight.  Good job on getting the info quickly. --Bobak 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undergraduate rankings

message: All of the images in this article that were uploaded by User:Wd40gdw and User:Troyboysc are listed for deletion due to doubts about their copyright status (see here and here). Considering that most of them are just pictures of the campus, it should be easy for someone to go on campus and shoot a bunch of photos. Or try this search on Flickr. howcheng  {chat} 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't! Pictures found on the internet are copyright, and so not usually suitable. This is why the last lot were deleted, and it just wastes everyones time cleaning up. Surely, however, there is someone with a camera who could take a photo and release it under a suitable license? Notinasnaid 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images listed for deletion 

message: Just to summarize my semi-reverts:
*1st edit: The term "most selective" is a term used by US News (also cited in the article), but I'm looking at the 2006 ed. hard copy and it's listed on page 148: "most selevtive" (this info is also available online for 2007, citation now added).  There is no challenge to USC's diversity claim either, please see page 47 of the US News' index of Racial Diversity, National Universities.  I did remove the excessive "only".  Again, all legitimate reverts but one word.  
*2nd edit: Again, this can be all proven with this citation, to the University of Florida's TheCenter (no space), which produces the reliable numbers for university facts like these. See The Top American Research Universities (2005), page 34 (most recent). 
*3rd edit:  Citations added where needed, corrected where there was confusion with the graduate programs (several kept removed).  However, I am retaining correct citations by schools that have ranked themselves (otherwise there would be an issue of USC's committing fraud).  I also added entrepreneurship since I was looking.  I corrected the mistake in engineering, it was also a reference on that USC page to the graduate program, but I found the US News cite.  The USC film school didn't really need to introduce itself, but its own page will have to do.  
--Bobak 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On recent edits, now with cites: 

message: The factoid about UCLA fans unwrapping the duct tape around Tommy Trojan, painting the statue blue, and re-wrapping the duct tape comes as news to me—and I am rather incredulous.  This job would take more hours than the statue has ever been left unguarded, and unless the vandalism took place prior to the 1990s, it would have been noticed (and perhaps witnessed) by numerous people on TommyCam well before the final unwrapping of the statue.  I'm placing a citation needed tag on this tidbit, and if no reference is cited within a few months, I'll remove the information.  (Perhaps it's vandalism in the form of wishful thinking?) Robert K S 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I change my mind—I'm deleting it immediately.  That particular sentence was full of typographical errors, suggestive of vandalism, and the factoid about the statue being wrapped up in duct tape prior to UCLA games comes at the end of the article, making it, moreover, redundant. Robert K S 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was impossible.  After reviewing the anon IP's other edits, notable this vandal/self-removal, I put a mild warning on his page for adding what appears to be deliberate misinformation (and you are correct, it is (1) not true and (2) impossible for the reason you said, as well as the fact that it's under survellance by USC students during that time).  Good work.  --Bobak 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tommy Trojan unwrap, paint, rewrap

message: Should the WikiProject California Banner be in the article, or on the talk page?  Trojan traveler 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page.  I've removed it from the article, I'll put it here --Bobak 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject California

message: I reverted a change which moved Marshall School of Business Entrepreneur Program from 6th to 3rd. Unfortunately the article is not sourced, but some informal searching showed a number of results including  which supported this. The edit summary was, however, completely wrong because I was reverting a swathe of inappropriate links at the same time, sorry. Notinasnaid 10:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: As some have pointed out, this article probably could use some better (freely usable) photos of campus and its landmarks (we already have a decent one of Bovard, but there could be a better photo).  Since this is SoCal, sunny day photos are ideal.  I took some of Whitney, the Tirebiter statue, Galen Center and the Coliseum last time I was on campus for homecoming, but I forgot to take more photos (and I live in Minneapolis, so this isn't something I can just roll out of bed and do...).  Thus I think it would be helpful to generate a list of "wanted" photos and see if anyone can supply them.  I will start a list below and if people want to add suggestions, please do. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We have a good "wrapped" photo, now lets get one unwrapped.--Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Second.  I have a few I could upload, but I'm certain others have better ones. Robert K S 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *not pretty buildings, but people would like to see the buildings with the "George Lucas" and/or "Spielberg" on them) --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have a good and recent Lucas one I can upload. Robert K S 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *See above comment on Cinematic Arts --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is the pretty house on Adams, not the school on campus. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Probably just for its own article only --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just about any good photo will do. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *In case someone, somehow is going to be over there... --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do so and you shall be known as the rocking one! --Bobak 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo list 

message: Please add and/or make comments on each (do not delete what you disagree with, rather let us know you disagree so we can all see); to make a new comment: indent (":"), bullet ("*") and sign ("--~~~~").  You can also feel free to show photos you may have of these locations.  I realize I'm not using the formal names, just the common ones: 
PHOTO LIST:
*Doheny library
*Student Union
*Tommy Trojan
:*We have a good "wrapped" photo, now lets get one unwrapped.--Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Second.  I have a few I could upload, but I'm certain others have better ones. Robert K S 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *not pretty buildings, but people would like to see the buildings with the "George Lucas" and/or "Spielberg" on them) --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have a good and recent Lucas one I can upload. Robert K S 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *See above comment on Cinematic Arts --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is the pretty house on Adams, not the school on campus. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Probably just for its own article only --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just about any good photo will do. --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *In case someone, somehow is going to be over there... --Bobak 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do so and you shall be known as the rocking one! --Bobak 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested photo list for USC article

message: I think the article needs to avoid using language that risks sounding biased and unfactual. Not to bring up the rivalry with UCLA again, but just concentrating on their respective wiki articles, one gets the sense that the UCLA article is more factual and impartial than USC's, which contains subjective language such as "USC is well known for..." or "is among the best..." or "is known for...especially in...". Such subjectivity suggests a lack of scholastic or intellectual integrity which reflects negatively on an article about, what is above all things, an academic institution. When editing this article, I suggest doing it from the standpoint of an academic paper or thesis. For example, if one want's to make note of USC's fame, don't just state it oneself outrightly, but rather, cite a respectable source which addresses such a fame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.5.232 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thank you for bring it up here instead of running around and deleting sections.  Considering I've contributed substantially to both articles (albeit more on this one), I would need to see example of what you claim.  I suggest using the  tag on those sentences that trouble you, that way other editors can look that them and try to source them or tone down language.  We were able to source the academic rankings after a previous editor from Stanford was going through and deleting sections (when a fact tag would've been enough to alert those of use keeping an eye on the article) on several different university articles including this one.  However, of course, don't expect full agreement ;-) --Bobak 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Being Impartial 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are US News undergraduate rankings for anything but University, Business, and Engineering. Those other rankings (e.g. cinematic arts, accounting, etc) should probably be deleted if there are no alternate sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.5.232 (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made corrections.  Please buy or peruse a print copy before making such assumptions.  I am being a little terse because, while your initial, sourced, additions to the political atmosphere were based in sourced fact, the subsequent additions, starting here, became original research and opinion which are unacceptable in any Wikipedia article. To further make the point, this section "In stark contrast, USC's then acting student body president H. Eames Bishop held ties to relatively conservative Los Angeles Mayor Samuel Yorty, a staunch supporter of pro-Vietnam War President Lyndon Johnson. [18]" was very wrong: according to the very source you cited (Bishop's obit) he was a graduate of USC in 1936 --not the acting student body president in any relevant time period to Johnson.  --Bobak 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good add.  I was trying to figure out how to work that in but I couldn't make it flow properly.  --Bobak 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: In the beginning of the second paragraph of this article, the author claims that "USC is one of the most selective universities in the United States, admitting 25% or 8,634 of the almost 34,000 who applied for freshman admission in 2006." My objection has to do with the contention that a 25% admissions rate places USC among the most selective universities in the country. Harvard (9.3%), Yale (8.6%), pretty much the rest of the ivy league, MIT (13.3%), Stanford (10.8%), Georgetown (21%), and even the public UC Berkeley (23.5%), just to name a few, are more selective than USC if percentage of freshman applicants admitted is the criterion we're using. UCLA has an acceptance rate of 25.5% (gasp!), which is only slightly higher than USC's (assuming the author properly rounded the tenths place down only if it was below one half, of course). So USC is not anywhere near the most selective university -- probably not even in the top thirty. Please consider using less gushing language.
Theytsejam 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the term "most selective" is a term used by the US News (and other university ranking guides) to categorize admissions.  It uses several variations: "more selective", "selective", "less selective".  So to assume that it's "gushing language" actually reveals that you want an additional level beyond those, that can be done: simply write the percentage in the Harvard, Yale, etc. articles (or "top 10" or other such specific ranking).  --Bobak 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectivity NPOV 

message: The medical school page needs some serious work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.52.236 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please improve Keck School of Medicine Page (USC Med school) 

message: Okay, maybe we should start working on eliminating repetition --particularly with Bovard which has no less than three photos.  We should try to restrict photos of each building/object to one photo (on this page, for more we can always create separate articles on the building/objects themsevles) or two photos if they're both modern and historical (Bovard and Whitney would be good examples).  Right now the multiple photos of Tommy (although the wrapped one should stay), Doheny, Annenberg and even Trousdale are a bit overkill for the top-level USC article (vs. specific articles).  Maybe this is a good time to start working on new articles on some of these buildings.  --Bobak 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to throw out some ideas for new building articles: Bovard, Doheny, Whitney, Mudd Hall, the Student Union, Hancock, VKC/WPH, Leavey and a number of others would easily support their own articles. Actually, even the ugly gray block in the middle of the business school is a work by I.M. Pei. --Bobak 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Here is a website with the history to many of the buildings on campus  (Padsquad19 06:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures revisited (the other side of the scale)

message: While this would make great material for articles on infringement: (1) how is this unique to USC; (2) how is notable enough to be on a top-level page on the university as a whole?  To quote the LA Times article cited in the second version: "Other universities getting the letters include Arizona State, Syracuse, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas and Massachusetts."  It's a great source for articles on copyright infringement (there's probably a great article to be written on the RIAA vs. students and their universities), but it's not particularly notable for this article. --Bobak 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USC students infringing music copyrights