Talk:Columbia University/Archive 2

message: How did this article get so crufty?  Koronet's pizza?  Please stop adding information unrelated to Columbia University.  Much of this information would be better placed in the Morningside Heights article or not at all.  --DDG 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft 

message: On 9 March, 64.61.107.115 added the unsourced item:
:The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as one of the nation's earliest centers for graduate education.
It was coupled with an inaccurate claim that "By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates" when, in fact, it wasn't even close to being the leading producer of doctorates even in the United States.
:You are mistaken.  See the prior section.
Now, "one of the earliest" is one of these peacocky claims that means nothing in particular by itself. Does it mean one of the first three? The first ten? the first hundred? My experience so far is that these vaguely worded "one of the most" claims are usually made when the thing is not, in fact, in the top three. If we're to mention it at all, and mentioning it was not my idea, we should provide more specific context. So, I edited it to read:
:The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as an early center for graduate education, awarding its first PhD in 1875 (following Yale in 1862, Cornell in 1872, and Harvard in 1873).
I think this puts things clearly into context. Yale actually does lead everyone else, and by more than a decade. What follows then is a number of universities, all introducing Ph.D. programs at about the same time, during what was obviously a wave of post-Civil-War university expansion. In that context, Columbia is certainly early, but not a pioneer. It is not, in fact, a particularly notable characteristic of Columbia. With regard to when they introduced European-style Ph.D. programs, Yale is notable as being the first, and Johns Hopkins is notable as being by far the most productive. Columbia was just doing what all the leading U. S. universities were doing.
141.152.246.127 snipped the mention of the colleges with earlier graduate programs with the edit comment "why compare who was first?" (I am also extremely annoyed that 141.152.246.127 also removed the supporting reference.)
Now, why even say that Columbia's program was "early?" I'd be perfectly happy to say that "Columbia issued its first Ph.D. in 1975" and leave it at that. But if we must characterize it as "early," then it is only reasonable to show the reader what exactly is meant by early. I've moved this to a footnote, but making a comparative characterization ("early") but suppressing the basis for comparison (who, exactly, was earlier and by how much) is dishonest. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One of the earliest centers for graduate education." Why we should mention the others 

message: IMHO the only neutral thing to do is to say "fifth or sixth oldest" and present the details in a note. 
We should acknowledge Columbia's own claim to be fifth, and the AFAIK undisputed fact that it was chartered fifth.
However, Penn, though chartered after Columbia, was founded before Columbia. Even if one thinks Penn's 1740 date is bogus (and I am one who does think so), Penn was certainly founded no later than 1749, earlier than Columbia. So AFAIK it is also undisputed that Columbia was founded sixth.
Now, as to whether "founding" or "chartering" should "count," I think the date of "founding" is the one that is customarily used. The order of march in university processions is traditionally based on the date of founding (and the hosting institution customarily accepts the founding date self-reported by the guest institutions). 
It's not neutral to selectively present only the definition of age that happens to give the more venerable result. I think it is patently dishonest to say simply "fifth" without explanation. Nor does "fifth oldest chartered" cut it. "Chartered fifth" would, but neutrality would still require something like "chartered fifth (founded sixth)." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth/sixth oldest 

message: I've seen that the article text was duplicated, and reverted to the Revision as of 08:27, 22 April 2006. Now I see that maybe I missed something. Pls check the required correction. Thanks, Noon 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert - help 

message: Events like the bad poetry contest aren't really school tradtions, they're just relatively obscure events which are held every year by relatively obscure clubs.  Doesn't the inclusion of something like this amount to a plug for that student group?  Erase? Jiggz84 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradtions include minor club events 

message: Someone added "citation needed" tags to several movies in this section. I have two problems with that. Firstly, with the header at the top of the section asking for sources, putting another flag on each line item is 1) ugly, and 2) redundant. Secondly, the standard being used there was wrong. The linked articles don't need to mention the Columbia appearance; as long as the film itself did in fact feature a Columbia character or scene, it is appropriate to mention, so the specific complaints (visible when you edit the field, and I left them even when I deleted the tags) don't really make sense to me. I'm also not sure what sources the other editor is looking for; the most obvious source would be the film itself. DCB4W 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In film, television and the arts 

message: Sorry, but Marvel Comics' "Peter Parker" attends the similarly fictitious "Empire University".  While bearing a striking resemblence to the Morningside Heights campus (alright, the movie was *filmed* there), in fact the character is always refered in all the literature and other media as attending Emprire U.
Not that I think it should be in the article, but in the start of the first movie they DO call the place Columbia University at the beginning of the spider-exhibit tour, not Empire University. 64.131.190.113 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ficticious Columbians

message: The history section, while good, is overwhelmingly large.  Consider breaking it off into a History of Columbia University article.  Then, leave a brief history on the main page. --Xtreambar 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Columbia University

message: I checked Columbia web pages, and they state the library has 9.3, 9.2, and 8.6 million volumes. Which is accurate?
:I doubt that it's even a meaningful question, for two reasons:
::Although I'm sure some administator pencil-whips a column of numbers on pieces of paper and comes up with total, I seriously doubt that it is possible to count the number of "volumes" in a "university library" to an accuracy better than +/-10%, both because of vagueness in what counts as a "volume" and vagueness as to what counts as a "university library" (most universities contain big rooms full of books that are not administratively part of "the library." And most universities have outlying campuses, field stations, outreach programs etc. at varying distances from the central campus. Columbia has a geological laboratory located at Palisades, NY, for example. I'll bet it's got a big room full of books in it. Do they count? 
:Nor, even if it could be answered, do I think it's any more important that a count of, say, the number of electrical sockets in the Columbia libraries. Either of them is some kind of measure of how big the library is, and neither of them is more than the roughest indication of anything in particular.
:My suggestion (as always) is to go with the American Library Association, on the assumption that they are a) library professionals, who b) presumably have made some effort to come up with comparable volume counts of different libraries, and the number they give is 7,697,488. 
:"About eight or nine million" would work, too.
:(So... I did both. Worded it as "eight or nine million volumes," retained the reference to the 9.3 million "printed volumes" figure, and added the reference to the ALA's "7,697,488 volumes held" figure). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you ever check the dates each of these webpages were updated? Perhaps they have accumulated more volumes during the interim. Or lost a whole bunch... Valley2city 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbia Libraries

message: Changing "students attacked". There was no attack or even vague threats against the speakers' safety. In fact, reporters caught -- on tape -- Minutemen kicking a student in the HEAD right before the speech. The students stormed the stage, not attacked it.
Hey, 70.154.141.34, if you are going to describe the protestors "radical left wing," cite a reasonable source (or any source, for that matter). Otherwise, it's just POV. Leftist, maybe. "Radical"? Sez who?
Also, a source is needed for the claim that students "appeared to be the first to use physical force." 
Kaydee1970 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MinuteMen Protest

message: The athletics section is getting quite long, and the entire article is probably too long as it is.  I propose a new article with all of the current information be created, and a sampling of the most significant athletics information be left in the current article.Shoreranger 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate most of "Athletics" into its own article?

message: Why isn't he mentioned as a notable alumni? I'm not saying he's one to be proud of but it's not for an encyclopedia to choose whether to include him or not, no? Not only did he come to the school, he was the pitcher for the baseball team. Just throwing this out there.
:Is this a joke? Cjs2111 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's either a joke or someone giving undue credence to an urban legend.  Castro has no connection to Columbia whatsoever.  He has probably never even set foot on campus.  Unless I'm mistaken Castro does not speak English, and it would be impossible for anyone who can't speak English to graduate from Columbia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.68 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fidel Castro

message: I removed "Glass House Rocks" and "The Vagina Monologues" from the list of Columbia traditions. The term 'tradition' implies something that has existed for more than just a few years, and is unique to the Columbia experience. A festival in Lerner that has gone on three times to mild success, and a production of The Vagina Monologues on V-Day which, aside from also being just a few years old, is essentially no different than the similar 2700 productions on the same day on other college campuses, and in 81 countries. Accordingly, I do not believe that these events have relevance under Columbia Traditions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoloShot (talk • contribs) 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions? 

message: There is a current trend to have Wikiprojects for specific universities. I think it would be prudent to have a WP:Columbia to coordinate projects as well as to diffuse controversy and shouting matches that too often plague various Columbia articles. If you are interested in being part of this wikiproject, please add your name to the list at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Columbia University. Valley2city 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Columbia University 

message: There should be an admissions part of the article, as there is one on every other college wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.117.22.13 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics and Admissions 

message: Is this necessary?  It does not seem to be customary on other university articles or boxes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoreranger (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Transit Access"?

message: Is this section even needed? There already exists an article on people associated with Columbia university. Even if this section needs to stay, it's quite wordy and can be cut down a lot. I would do this myself, but I don't want to make any changes to this page before there's some kind of consensus. Who knows, an edit to this page could result in 10x more kruftiness on it. 67.188.227.114 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable Columbians?"

message: I see that the number essentially reflects CC + SEAS. I'm going to update the number to 6819, using the total number of BA/BS candidates enrolled at the three undergraduate schools of Columbia in the 2004-2005 year (most recent available data.) I've left out post-bac pre-med students at GS and Nursing students, since you can only apply for the program after a first bachelor's degree. To leave out GS is ludicrous. GS students receive instruction in the liberal arts from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Columbia, and receive an AB from the Trsutees of Columbia. That's an irrefutable fact, and should settle the matter. Any arguements over core requirements is silly. Absentminded 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undergraduate Population

message: I think there's a very good breakdown of what qualifies as traditions here: http://wikicu.com/Category:Traditions Granted, I don't think "traditions" belong on this entry, but that's another story. Absentminded 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditions

message: I'm not sure how many others agree with me, but the amount of filler, cruft, extraneous information, etc. on this article is boderline unbearable. Is there anyway we can scrap the article as it is now -- taking only the most pertinent information -- then rebuild the article? This is an encylopedia, and this article reads as if it were an admissions office leaflet. 76.102.129.22 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I welcome you to sign-up for an account (its free!) and work on a revised Columbia article on your test page. Then, invite people to comment on that page before making changes to the actual article. What do you say? Matan 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is massive. 104 KB is unacceptably long. I think it may also be a good idea to consider making some of the larger subsections into separate articles still with a summary and a  from the remaining shell on the CU article. I invite you to continue this discussion on the WikiProject dedicated to Columbia University --Valley2city₪‽ 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrap and re-write?

message: :Image:Columbia university lion mascot.jpg 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 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia university lion mascot.jpg