This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe we can use this website for pictures, after all it does say for the "general public", thus releasing all the pictures to the use of the general public. These pictures are awesome!! --Cornell010 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.asergeev.com/php/searchph/search.php?test=&keywords=cornell&mode=&year1=1996&month1=1&day1=1&year2=2006&month2=12&day2=31&lum=&hue=&order=AUTO
It seems like nearly every image features the clocktower and/or Uris Library. There's a lot more on campus, can we make the page a little more diverse? - Mercuryboard 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, Cornell redirects to Cornell University. This is how it should be. But do we really need to say "you've been redirected!" when most people would be at their correct destination anyway? Why not just this:
- Mercuryboard 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say the Hotel School is tops but I can't find any sources to support it. I know there are quotations out there but that's not really solid enough evidence; I'd rather have a ranking. Anybody know of anything? - Mercuryboard 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring out that we also need to really work on this school's page, it's atrocious.--Cornell010 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all these links to main articles. Almost 70% of them are short, and the same information is covered here on this article. For example, we do not need the main article for Qatar campus, it's pointless.--Cornell010 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There has already been some discussion on how this section should look (look in archive 2 under Cornell Safety Car). I believe there was some agreement among several editors that the research section should be more of a broad overview, with one line mentions of various things like the Cornell Safety Car, Mars rovers, etc., with links to the main articles on this stuff. I think one problem with this approach is that it relies on editors having this great overview of all of Cornell's research. It seems a tremendous task, which I think explains the lack of expansion.
As another proposal, let me suggest that it is not so bad to have these little subsections. I think there's always going to be a lack of energy in creating them, so there's little danger of getting overloaded. We can always snip and tighten things up if things get too long. We should just make sure to give a nice cross-section of research so as to avoid giving a narrow view; right now, we have computers/internet, space exploration, particle accelerators, car safety. Some stuff from biology/medicine would be good here, maybe veterinary stuff. -- C S (Talk) 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
given that so many of the individual dorm articles seem to be one line repetitive stubs, I created a new article for West Campus at Cornell West Campus. It would seem to be more logical to organize all of the information about the West Campus intiative in one article instead of in each residential college's article, but that might just be me. The article is still a rough draft. The hyperlinks for Cook and Becker in the article are currently pointing to external links, as I'm not sure if they should just point to stubs or not, feel free to change those to inter-wiki links if you feel that it is more appropriate.-- Moki80 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a link to a Newsweek listing of "25 Hot Schools"--Cornell the "best school for city-haters." :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626574/site/newsweek/
Adds some support for being "well regarded for scenic beauty," if anyone wants to incorporate it?
Should we merge the North Campus stubs as we have with West Campus? We could always branch off with {{mainarticle}} for Risley Hall. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We need to really work on the articles about the various colleges. I've tried to work on them, however, I don't really know much about them, and so we all need to get together and work on them.--Cornell010 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, if anyone knows anyone in NYC then tell them to take a nice pleasant walk by the Weill Medical center and snap some digital photographs. I would have tried mine, but they're in Florida. BTW, did anyone see the collegeconfidential posting about weill, it seems the word is spreading, perhaps now we will finally succeed at obtaining a Weill photograph!!!--Cornell010 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
They have this continuous layout approach which looks really good, maybe we should try it.--Cornell010 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In the article we have two unsourced facts. Search for 'citation' in the article to find them. The statements are:
Not only are they unsourced, but they're vague. We need to find a list of the country's largest university presses, or something that states exactly where Cornell fits. We also need to find the annual SAFC budget, or how much they give out. We are so close to FA, let's just get these last issues ironed out. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Discuss.--Cornell010 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently passed this article. I could tell that a lot of work had gone into the article's development and it closely follows the most important wikipedia guidelines. While I was slightly concerned with this article’s use of boosterism, I did not see this as a fatal flaw. There are significant obvious attempts to maintain a NPOV and avoid uncorroborated phrases of praise. It is definitely no worse than FA University of Michigan. In regard to boosterism, my biggest concern is the "Do not bury the reader in facts" portion. After reading this LENGTHY article as well as some linked articles, I can assure you that my brain did not successfully soak up all the information. I acknowledge, however, that most readers won't read these in their entirety and thus can soak more up. However, it might be helpful to create new articles and shorten some of the sections. Additionally, there may be some other minor issues, but the major issue (that can be easily remedied) to me was the flow of the article. The ordering of the sections seems illogical to me, particularly the alumni section. After reading about academics, as a reader, I expect to learn about the other aspects of Cornell life besides academics (i.e. research and student life). Talking about graduates before finishing up on what students and faculty do while at the university seems premature. Personally, I’d put the alumni section after research. In general, this article is well-written, follows a NPOV in the vast majority of cases, has properly tagged and helpful images, and is verifiable. Thus, a good article indeed! -- Bluedog423 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
On April 19, 1969, during a parents' weekend, over eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall. The takeover was precipitated by increasing racial tension at the university and the students' frustration with the administration's lack of support for a black studies program. On April 20, the takeover ended, with Cornell ceding to the Afro-American Society's demands. The students emerged making a black-power salute and with guns in hand (the guns had been brought into Willard Straight Hall after the initial takeover). James A. Perkins, president of Cornell during the events, would resign soon after the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.11 ( talk • contribs)
This might take a few days and a few editors. Rather than making intermediate steps public on Cornell University, or duplicating work that somebody else may be doing, let's all work on /alumni sandbox until it's ready to go public. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
How about if we mention how Cornell is known for giving out little financial aid, this might be a rumor, but it's worth a try. Also, we could talk about how people have complained about Cornell's rank being in the teens instead of in the top ten for USNWRs.-- 134.67.6.11 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should scrap the last line, it's already established that it is a "private research university", thus we don't need the money figures.-- User:Cornell010 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we ready?-- User:Cornell010 17:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-- ElKevbo 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been proposed that the history article be merged into this main article. It would make the article (which will be an FA in a few days) far too long, and violates WP:SUMMARY. See also History of Michigan State University. Oppose. — mercuryboard talk 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The titles of the 4 contract colleges begin with "New York State" and do not mention Cornell University. Not only are their affiliations with Cornell far more important than their affiliations with New York State, but none of the official college websites use the New York State designation in their names. The university website lists the colleges alongside their endowed peers, with an asterisk denoting the New York-supported ones. Google searches indicate that generally, NYS is not mentioned in the college names. I say we should change the page names, i.e. New York State College of Human Ecology -> Cornell University College of Human Ecology, and mention additional affiliations (such as with NYS) on the college pages. — mercuryboard talk 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
On the cornell website the motto is simply "any person .... any study" cornell010 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm requesting that we ask that Cornell be the Featured Article of the Day on Friday, September 8, so that the Sun can run a little blurb about it and Cornell students can take a gander at our handiwork. I know, it's a ways off, but for both Wikipedia and for getting interested eyes to come and help improve the article, I think it's better to wait until school is in session. I've appended the request for Featured Article of the Day status to reflect this. JDoorj a m Talk 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that a section on future developments would add a great deal to the page. However, we could just relegate it to the separate sections of each college. What are your thoughts? Cornell010 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
(taken from my userpage) Hello- I am extemely offended by the insinuation that my edits to the Cornell wikipedia page were in any way biased. If anything, I was extremely purturbed to come accross the entry that I have been trying to edit as it originally was. If you are going to talk about that Resolution by the Student Assembly (which I don't find necessary as it has nothing to do with Cornell's history, or the Student Assembly's current or future initatives), then at least qualify it as what it was-- a very unique piece of legislation that PASSED with FLYING COLORS and set a tremendous precedent for other student governments across the country. I don't see what it has to do with the SA's money management, and don't recall that coming up at all during the last few months. As such, please respect my edit, as it is not misrepresenting the resolution of university whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.25.15 ( talk • contribs)
I just made some minor edits to clean up the linking on the Student Activities section. It's probably not perfect, but you should definitely decide what should be linked in context and not. For example, in a sentence like "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf" you don't want to end up with "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf." Please see good links for more information. Elliott C. Bäck 07:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The way the current section "alumni" is written, it seems intended to focus entirely on graduates. Recently, someone removed Huey Lewis because he did not graduate, although he would technically be an alumnus. Perhaps this section is only meant to include graduates in which case the section heading should be changed to "graduates". -- C S (Talk) 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would add Huey Lewis back but... while he is an alum, I'm not sure if he is a "Cornellian". I believe "Cornellian" refers only to graduates, although I may be mistaken. That's one reason I thought the section heading of "graduates" may be more appropriate. -- C S (Talk) 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this figure correct?-- Cornell010 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is something to look at: > [2]
I think we have the finest presence of any university on Wikipedia. — mercuryboard talk 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does Cornell admit anyone with less than a first class honours degree into their graduate programmes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk) 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Is there anyway we can fix this problem? I believe that the root of the problem is the footnote section in the university info-box. Cornell010 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The history section has a rather glaring change in scope. The paragraph about the 1969 incident is fitting for a longer and much more detailed listing of historical incidents that have shaped Cornell policies. In its current location, it's been shoehorned in between "the first students were admitted" and "over the twentieth century, many changes", which seem to go together much more smoothly but at a much vaguer level.
Could this be rearranged to either minimize/outlink the incident or make it part of a longer and more detailed timeline? Right now it breaks the flow something awful. (Yes, I know, "fix it yourself", but I know nothing about Cornell and I'm thus poorly qualified for this task.) Mana Gement 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
See Penn's gallery section at the bottom of the article. I think it adds a nice touch and with carefully selected images the section can showcase Cornell's beauty as well as prestige. Some photos of Cornell have a way of exuding prestige and accomplishment.
-- angelrendon 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
^ Good idea. Princeton's section is also an example.
There is a loose reference to "5 billion dollar endowment" in the article on the new investment chief. This would mean that the endowment grew from 3.77 to 5.0 billion (~33%) in one year, which smells of error. Nevertheless, rabid alumni post the number everywhere, inserting it in lists of numbers otherwise referring to 6/2005 values (and falsely inflating Cornell's rank). In contrast here is a specific reference to 4.4 billion in investments under Cornell's control as 0f 8/20/2006 (from Cornell itself). This seems like a more expected, reasonable growth of the endowment. It's clearly from Cornell and it's more precise. Why not use it? Or at least acknowledge it in a footnote? Or should we pick and choose what information to show to make Cornell look strongest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.68.223 ( talk • contribs)
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the 5.0 on this page; but I have a strong feeling the 4.4 is correct, and we'll see this come out in a month or two as schools start leaking their year end values. Anybody else?
Would Dear Uncle Ezra be worth mentioning in the article? -- Kjoon lee 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not the main article, but it might be worth its own separate article. I believe Columbia's equivalent service has its own article.-- Xtreambar 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Execuse me. What is the annual endownment. To be precise: What amount of money does the university spend in a year on their expenses. I think this a more interesting figure than the whole endownment. Please add it to the page.
I'm not sure about the notable alumni section... its a lot of linkage and, when read all together (i.e. not just from a copyediting or writer's perspective), is pretty dry. Anyone else agree? Someone should find a friendlier picture than Wolfowitz, but that's just personal taste. ;)
The other thing is, has anyone ever heard of Cornell notes? Perhaps it's not significant enough for the already-extensive article, but this note-taking format is widely used and to my knowledge has been adapted to many academic programs, one of which is used throughout the state of California, so it should probably get a mention somewhere IMO. Paliku 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article will go up on the main page in the next 24 hours. I encourage people to read over the page again. Though little has changed in the past couple months, a once-over wouldn't hurt. -- Xtreambar 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The Daily Sun wrote about the FA-of-the-day-status of the Cornell University article. Again, good work, everybody! JDoorj a m Talk 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
How does one get the coordinates to appear at the top of the page? I would like to add them for another university page I am working on. Thanks! -- Daysleeper47 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says that Cornell was conceived after the American Civil War in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. According to the Industrial Revolution article, that was over, by the most liberal interpretation, by 1840. Am I missing something here? Right now, this rather jarring statement is on the front page of Wikipedia!-- Wehwalt 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As it now stands, the article does not adequately explain how a university that was originated by the New York State Senate as a land-grant school came to be a private institution. Sylvain1972 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to make some clarifications, but they were deleted by someone who does not understand the subtle relationship between the endowed and statutory colleges. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't delete. Racepacket 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jbacu1985 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The private/public distinction is not really relevant today - in my view it's meaningless. The more accurate description is that Cornell is substantively independent from the State of New York in setting its strategies and policies, and the use of land and endowment assets. The Cornell Board of Trustee's is 'vested with "supreme control" over the university. As NY State's Land Grant university, Cornell's mission - both in theory and in practice are as 'public' as most any university, however the state legislature cannot directly control how the mission and programs are delivered upon.
user racepacket changed the name of all the statutory colleges to say NYS; the truth is that the colleges have not had NYS in their name since 1971. Here is the proof http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/about/overview/index.cfm check "our roots." Quote: The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences evolved over the past century from the Department of Agriculture (1874), to the College of Agriculture (1888), to the New York State College of Agriculture (1904), to the present name (1971). These changes reflect our dedication to meeting society's ever-changing needs." Lastly, in cornell's website, it has all the names of the schools http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm which do not have NYS on them - mojojojo69 9:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The section below demonstrates a disturbing lack of continuity: There is a detailed account of the situation of the university in the middle of the 19th century immediately proceeding a description of racial strife one hundred years later.
Is there nothing noteworthy (at this level of detail) to report over the interveening hundred years?
I am reluctant to modify the text myself. (It is currently the article of the day). Better I let those who produced the article take charge of surgery.
The university was inaugurated on October 7, 1868, and 412 men were enrolled the next day.[9] Two years later, Cornell admitted its first women students, making it the first coeducational school among what came to be known as the Ivy League. Scientists Louis Agassiz and James Crafts were among the faculty members.[8]
In September 2006, David Skorton formally became Cornell's 12th and current presidentOn April 19, 1969, more than eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall.
--
Philopedia
22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I have wondered why no one else is bothered by the sloppy history section. I wrote the first two paragraphs and took the last one from an old version of the lead paragraph. What's up with the WSH takeover taking up half of the history section!?--
Xtreambar
18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the comments above. The WSH takeover "takes over" the history section. We need to trim it down to a more succinct and appropriate length.--
Parenthetical Guy
22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with those above who believe detail in the section overall is lacking. Much has happened between the Ezra vision and founding and today. That stuff's gotta be here!
I have been comparing the current edition with that of the September 14th (last before the September 20 editions), and found some differences... The reference to the "Sylvester Lloyd" incident is newly added. Almost the only source I could find for this was the one cited ( http://www.deltasigmatheta.com/hazenews/haze01.htm), with less than a dozen other webpages citing the source mentioned. Nor could I find any mention of one Sylvester Lloyd on the Cornell website (page search and people search), so I'm slightly skeptical about whether or not this actually took place. Would someone please confirm it with an independent reliable source? The founding date has been changed from "April 27, 1865" to "April 27 1865"; is the deletion of the comma appropriate? The caption of "Big Red Planet" has been changed to Mars. I think I prefer the title of "Big Red Planet" because it ties in better with the context. What's every else's opinion on this? Mimson 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Cornell has made public its endowment stats for fiscal year ending 6/30/2006, and the value is 4.3B as noted in http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/endowment.htm.
Cornell helped make it, why can't its picture be on this page?
I've removed Huey Lewis from this article for the second time. Please note that he definitely does not belong in the Alumni section since he dropped out before graduation.
Overall, the alumni section has some paragraphs that seem very sloppy and disorganized (especially the paragraphs on authors and entertainers). This needs to be cleaned up.
Bill Maher is mentioned in two seperate paragraphs. He is probably best categorized as an entertainer/comedian than a journalist (by his own account), so I have removed him from the list of journalists. User:keammo1 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Ratan Tata is worth mentioning in Cornell Alumni list. He is one of the most influential business figures in India. I saw his name here a couple of days ago, but it's not there any more.
Ratan Tata is on the List of Cornell University People under Business. He certainly seems worthy of being listed on the main Cornell University page. If you want him there, put him there. -- Cjs56 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-Well I tried, but it keeps getting deleted for some reason.
I still don't see why Huey Lewis needs to get mentioned. The article is long. Make room for other alumni who actually graduated. Is anyone with me on this? Against? In any case, it's extremely confusing to start the section with "Graduates of Cornell are known as 'Cornellians'." and then go on to mention people that did not graduate! Huey Lewis should either be out, or something needs to be done to make it clear that he is not a Cornell graduate. My feeling is to just take him out. Yes, I know it's a fun fact that he attended Cornell for a while, but does he really need mention in the Alumni section? Let's please settle this - User:keammo1 4:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence defining "Cornellian" in that way was probably a mistake. Usage of "Cornellian" can include alumni, faculty, etc.; this is the definition used on List_of_Cornell_University_people. It's a bad idea to weed out the section, keeping only graduates. Then we would have to take out Kurt Vonnegut. If your issue is notability, there are very notable former students more famous than some of the graduates listed. So keeping only graduates is not workable. If you have some other scheme in mind, please describe it on this talk page. At this point, removing one name (Huey Lewis) is rather pointless. -- C S (Talk) 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the Wolfowitz pic keeps getting deleted?
Methinks perhaps vandalism? I've had to put it back the magical three times -- Cjs56 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an insult to all Cornellians to have his picture on this website...much as the same as any Cornellian is ashamed to admit that Anne Coulter is a graduate.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.84.85.57 (
talk •
contribs)
Not all Cornell alumni would agree with your view of embarrassing.
National Research Council is the only official agency which ranks universities based on their long-term research achievments. It basically averages the perfomance of schools over a period of ten years and because of that, it is more robust (despite USNEWS rankings which could change every year).
Ten years is chosen because the time constant of change in universities is more than 10 years and hence the data is valid even if it is 10 years old (look at sampling rate and bandwidth according to Nyquist!). for more information, please look at their homepage.
The last ranking goes back to 1995 and the next one will be out in September 2007 (one year delay). Again, because of NRC method, the 1995 data is not considered old and is still the most relavant ranking among schools. Although some college students or their parents might pay attention to USNEWS because of its publicity.
It seems to be fair to have both rankings in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.225.153 ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
The NRC methodology is flawed, and this has been remarked upon and supposedly fixed in the new ones coming out. In my experience these rankings have drawn fire in the academic community particularly because of the appearance of being "better" or more "respectable" than US News rankings. I don't see any evidence that they really are so though. But this is all beside the point. They are well-known rankings and deserve mention just as much as any of these other rankings. -- C S (Talk) 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Might not be the proper forum to post this, but the article on the Cornell Glee Club is somewhat problematic and I'm wondering if there are any Cornell-affiliated people who might want to take a look at it - particularly (but not only) to see if the huge list of "Cornell Songs" might be whittled down to just the ones people today are actually aware of.-- Dmz5 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to see some consensus on this. I believe that the alumni pictures should be diverse (ex: 1 government and 1 something else). I was just wondering if anyone had ideas of what types of people should have their picture in the alumni section.
I like the current two pictures, however, if there was a Toni Morrison picture I would put it up there.
thanks.--Cornell010 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think other alumni need to be represented in picture form here too. Bill Nye (the Science Guy) is a good candidate for starters.
The pictures will look awesome, since Cornell has all this snow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornell010 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit: i admit it; i'm a wiki/html/etc noob...how do I get this to be a normal looking topic like all the other ones?]
Some of the articles for individual colleges, especially College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Arts and Sciences, Human Ecology, and even Weill Med. College seem to be lacking. Chose to insert this topic in overall university discussion rather than in those colleges' pages because their discussions are virtually dead :P But seriously, i think these pages need some work. Anyone willing to pitch in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.89.167 ( talk • contribs)
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to make pages concerning the club sports in Cornell such as Ultimate Frisby, Squash, Table Tennis, Karate, Taekwondo, and the like. I would be willing to make contributions but can anyone else follow me up on this?
I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I look at Cornell's often for inspiration, so I was wondering if I could get advice. I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university. I am here because Cornell, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, research university, and should have basically similar article styles. Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like Cornell. How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved? Who/where is good to ask for assistance? What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.-- Patrick 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just in the process of replying (I had to dig the exact page name up first...). The only FU rationale on the page was the following:
Fair use rational: Illustrates the logo in question. {{no rationale}} {{Non-free logo}}
This doesn't describe how the logo itself contributes to the reader's understanding of the article(s) in question, et cetera. Also, could you give me a list of what articles/templates this was used on? Thanks, ^ demon [omg plz] 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) SO where did the logo come from? cOrneLlrOckEy 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's what ^demon deleted:
-- Xtreambar 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to have a picture of the water-fall and the picture of the plantations, I think that we should choose one or the other ;having both pictures results in over-crowding in that part of the page. Cornell010
I just stumbled across some information about a briefly lived college at Cornell called the State College of Forestry at Cornell. Apparently it existed from 1901 until June 17, 1903 when the Board of Trustees voted to dissolve the college due to lack of state support. See NYT June 18, 1903 "Cornell School of Forestry Suspended" perhaps someone wants to take a crack at an article about this since defunct college at Cornell.-- Xtreambar 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought an interesting section to have would be to mention characters in movies, tv shows, or other media that feature a Cornell connection. I know off the top of my head the short lived TV show "Over There" had a US soldier that was a Cornell graduate. Life Time Movie network also had some movie called ""When Innocence Is Lost" that featured a character that gets accepted to Cornell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.230.193 ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Cornell has the highest suicide rate of any university in America. WHY isn't it mentioned in the article? Come on, people. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are these on the main page. They should be linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.159.108 ( talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of cleanup and no longer complies with WP:WIAFA; I will check back in in a few weeks to see if a featured article review should be initiated, or if cleanup and citation has been accomplished. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that the West Campus rehab is complete, shouldn't we cut down on the level of detail in the main article and move this to the Cornell West Campus article? Racepacket ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The location of Cornell was incorrectly identified as Jackson Maine. I changed it to Ithaca NY. At least...I hope it's still there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GibbonsRUs ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am editing the page as per Featured Article removal suggestions. Things need to be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.245.248 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cornell's Endowment at the end of the June 30, 2008 fiscal year was $5.39 Billion. The Bloomburg reference says it shrunk 27% which would put it at $3.93 Billion. One editor changed the figure and added the Bloomburg article as a footnote, but another editor set it back to $5.39. I think that the $3.93 is more accurate, but I can't find any other sources for it. The Sun merely quotes Bloomburg.
Writing about the endowment size is always tricky. Cornell has at least four different funds which collectively could be viewed as its "endowment." The "endowment" strictly defined is the assets which have been donated to Cornell limiting the use of the principle but with the earnings going to support a University purpose. Other funds are the current fund (in effect, Cornell's money market account), funds where there is no legal restriction on the use of the principle but as a matter of policy Cornell wants to invest it, and funds given to Cornell where the donor keeps the income for life.
Years ago, most colleges reported their endowments as the marketable securities which they held, but now so many schools invest in hedge funds, real estate, and other less-liquid assets, so it hard to value them and hard to draw the line between endowment and non-endowment assets. Racepacket ( talk) 13:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Lead is gigantic! 129.105.19.151 ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: By devoting most of the first paragraph to mention of the contract college and land grant system, I and several other alumni feel we are foregoing an opportunity to make a more elegant lead-in. I remember that when researching the university and trying to decide between Cornell and UC Berkeley, I was quite put off by this paragraph. I did not understand what a land-grant school was, and upon learning about the designation, I did not see how it was relevant enough to be in the very first paragraph. We agree that the land grant status is unique and deserving of mention, but we do not understand why this mechanical fact needs to be at the forefront of Cornell's image. Thank you all for your consideration. -Blake Anderson et al., Class of 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.165.3 ( talk) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As you know, a Wikipedia editor had interpreted the web page at: http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/About-Our-College/More_About_Us/history.cfm to somehow imply that in 1969, the New York State legislature had deleted the words "New York State" from the names of the four statutory colleges. I am please to announce that the Human Ecology webmaster has now corrected that page to reflect the current full legal name of the school and to avoid any further confusion. Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.85.247.51 (
talk)
19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
...Forbes ranked Cornell the 207th-best college in the United States here. Something tells me the methodology of their ranking system is a bit off... — Notyourbroom ( talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
DEAR EDITORS,
I recently added, under 'admission', a sentence on the lines of "Cornell uses legacy admission" followed by a reference. This was deleted; i.e., it was a breach of the wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 ( talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a picture of a water fall close to campus. Feel free to move to a better spot in the article, but the International section was empty, and something is needed to illustrate how big a part the outdoors scene plays at Cornell. ("Ithaca is gorges," anyone?) — Eustress talk 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Upon all the college brochures and papers, the motto has been shortened to "Any person, any study." Should a change be made, or a note added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.61.85 ( talk) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Under the Academics>Financial Aid section, there's this sentence: "Even after the decree, all Ivy League schools continue to award aid on financial need without offering any athletic scholarships." Is this true? And did I miss seeing a source for this, or should it be deleted? Woken Wanderer ( talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like either of these recently-added sections. I'll split my comments into two parts and sign in three places. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I consider myself to be primarily inclusionist in philosophy, this article is already significantly too long, and so I don't envision the equivalent of "in popular culture" being a germane or helpful addition to the article. edited to add: This does not preclude the possibility of someone founding an article on the topic (if there isn't one already), but I don't think it's a good idea to clutter up the main-topic article with ancillary information like that. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Revised: — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to bury these, as they've certainly been newsworthy. However, at present, it's just tacked onto the end of the article as a main-heading addendum. The information could be incorporated into the article somewhere (I haven't dug through to pick out possibilities yet) but it's stylistically very clumsy to have postscripts like that one added to articles. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the statement:
"Cornell hosts the second largest fraternity and sorority system in North America, with 70 chapters involving 33% of male and 24% of female undergraduates."
I believe is pretty untrue. I did some of my own research, enough I believe to remove the "second-largest" part, which is all I'm concerned with. I go to Cornell and find it an irritating urban legend.
The references to the statement are both nonexistent. Presumably, the reference for the "second largest" part is from a web page from a fraternity at Cornell.
1. ^ "Go Greek!". Scorpion TKE. http://www.scorpiontke.org/rush/greek. Retrieved 2006-06-09.
US News seems to support, independently (which actually seems to be drawn from a now-nonexistent webpage on Cornell's website) the percentages. (Also, US News's numbers for sororities are completely wrong and just seem to be a copy of the fraternity numbers.) But the original source seems to be Cornell, but that link is of course broken.
^ a b c "Fraternity & Sorority Advisory Council Annual Report 2004–2005" (PDF). Cornell University. http://www.dos.cornell.edu/FSA/PDFs/OFSA_AR05_smaller.pdf. Retrieved 2006-05-22.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/most-frats
Cornell students in the Greek system: Roughly 3,990
So, it just always seemed to me that it was unlikely that a school with 14,000 students in the Greek system would have more than these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment
Just taking the two biggest party schools, using numbers from a couple college information websites:
Arizona State:
15 percent live on campus in a dorm or fraternity/sorority house.
An old Wikipedia article claimed without citation that 9% of Cornell undergraduates reside in Greek housing, so even only using 15% for Arizona State, it should safely be an underestimate.
>7,000 using generous rounding
University of Florida:
Undergrad Men in Fraternities - 14% Undergrad women in sororities - 20%
7,200 using generous rounding
So these are 80% larger than Cornell's estimated number. It has been suggested that they meant the second-largest number of chapters, which is pretty much the last way anyone would interpret "second largest," and there's no reason to believe that's accurate, anyway. It's not by students and it's not by percentage. This should be enough evidence to at least remove "second largest" until someone can find a real source.
And don't worry, I'd already done the research for an unrelated reason, so I didn't do all this just for two words in a Wikipedia article. Fitzgerald ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Fitzgerald
The new history section includes the dubious claim: "No other coeducational institution of higher learning existed in the United States at the time [1873], so this was a revolutionary step in the development of modern higher education in America." Besides the peacockish framing (the entire second phrase), the first phrase is simply factually wrong: women were admitted to the University of Wisconsin in 1863, Northwestern admitted women in 1869, women were admitted to MIT and Michigan in 1870, and certainly Mt. Holyoke, Vassar, and Wellesley were all founded before 1870. See to it that this claim is removed. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To be frank, I still think the history section is in extremely poor shape. The current revision preserves or reinforces the already disproportionate weight assigned to Cornell's not-entirely revolutionary vision for coeducational education. However, there is no substantive discussion of its changes in response to industrialization at the turn of the 19th century, the impact of the World Wars and Depression, post-war growth, student protests in 1960s & 70, etc. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the clutter between 22–26 July 2010. My most recent overhaul was to ensure that every single <ref> tag contained a {{cite}} template rather than a URL or other bare/periphrastic citation. I did not generally check other references (i.e., those using a {{cite}} template) for completion or accuracy. At present, the only "nonstandard" in-line citation is the footnote in the introduction that says "The other is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." There's no reason to modify that, as it's just a footnote and not actually a citation. I ran the error-checker of Wikipedia:RefToolbar_1.0 (the "refToolPlus" version, I think?) and it can detect no other errors or concerns. — Bill Price( notyourbroom) 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ranking year | Tag | Defined? | Status |
---|---|---|---|
2006 | <ref name="princeton"> | Yes | Established "princeton" |
2007 | <ref name="princeton"/> | No | Ambiguous reference; plus, 2006 and 2009 would both have been incorrect as antecedents. |
2009 | <ref name="princeton"> | Yes | Overwrote the 2006 "princeton" |
— Bill Price( notyourbroom) 21:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See this edit. For future reference, parenthetical footnotes (or whatever they're called) should be added <ref group="note">like this</ref> while in-line citations should follow the normal <ref name="...">{{cite ...}}</ref> format. As long as that standard is adhered to, the two will remain properly sorted from each other at the bottom of the article. (I noticed this was done in the Atom article and thought it'd be worth copying.) — Bill Price( notyourbroom) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Good Article Criteria can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria
The criteria are as follows (taken from the above link).
A good article is—
Please edit with yes or no, and if no, please explain why is does not meet good article standards. Please also sign each line as you fill it in.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Okay, let's shoot for Good Article ASAP! Adavis444 ( talk) 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Added the 2010 Forbes ranking to the template. The template still generates citations for 2009 rankings, though, so it will need to be fixed eventually. — Bill Price ( nyb) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I notice a recent edit by Notyourbroom that tries to clarify Cornell's status in the lead, private or public. I agree that the footnote which is linked to gives a good explanation, but it makes the lead more sluggish when it has a lot of footnotes. It would be better to make the same information visible in the lead, even in a reduced form, right in the prose itself. At present the lead consists of four paragraphs, and the first paragraph is just one sentence. How about adding a second sentence which would clarify the private/public stuff? My suggestion is to change the first paragraph of the lead to the following:
Cornell University ( /kɔrˈnɛl/, kor-NEL) is an Ivy League university located in Ithaca, New York. It is a private land-grant university which receives funding from the State of New York for certain educational missions.
The explanation of the second sentence follows in the Organization section of this article so no additional note machinery would be needed. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Talk:Cornell University was copied or moved into Cornell University with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No recent issues noted
I've begun to reorganize the article to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE and add some missing substantive content (Carnegie Classifications, accreditation, academic calendar, etc.). Further work needs to be done in the following areas:
Cheers. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just documenting this stuff that I see unfolding... I'm not making any accusations or recommendations—I just have a feeling that this information may be beneficial in the future. — Bill Price ( nyb) 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't have that much of a problem with the block quote but the GA reviewers of both Cornell University and History of Cornell University had concerns. It is a lot of verbiage to make the point that Ezra Cornell considered sectarianism to be a larger potential problem than was later appreciated. Given that sectarianism proved not to be a big problem over the long term, is the quote worth fighting over? Racepacket ( talk) 04:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note a great series of Cornell-related images at asergeev.com (#474-479) , which are freely licensed at Commons through Commons:Template:Alex Sergeev permission.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone added that the $80 million gift to fund the sustainability center is the "largest". However, in 2007, Sandy Weill pledged $250 million, resulting in the Medical College being named after Weill. Racepacket ( talk) 03:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Cornell's west campus has changed enormously in the past five or six years. The thumbnail to the right is pasted exactly as it appears in the article. This photo dates from 2005 and is not at all representative of housing on West anymore. I'll change the photo to something else in a bit. — Bill Price ( nyb) 01:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I just rediscovered these photos, which were improperly categorized. — Bill Price ( nyb) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – MuZemike 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
between numbers and units of measurement, between months and dates (i.e. July 4), months and years (i.e. November 2010), large dollar amounts (i.e. $20 million), between the address number and street name in physical addresses, and before roman numerals (i.e. World War II)History section:
"Financial aid" subsection, 4th paragraph, from the article:
From the source ( http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jan08/finAid.html):
[six paragraphs later]
This is straight-up plagiarism; there was no effort made to paraphrase anything here.
In progress – basically, this is a start for this review, and I still need to go over the prose and references in detail. This may take a while due to the size of the article, but the above is a starting point for some of the things that need to be improved. – MuZemike 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Update (December 10) – I went through all the prose and made some copyediting, mostly in the part of adding non-breaking spaces where needed, combination of a couple paragraphs, and minor corrections in punctuation, grammar, and usage. I also went through and added {{ citation needed}} tags on stuff that was unsourced (see "Verifiability issues" above). Overall, the prose is very good and definitely passable for GA.
Next I plan to check the sources to make sure everything in the article are in the citations given. With regards to deadlinks, I also plan to check through all those and see if any of them no longer work. Again, apologies for the slow progress on the review, as I was busy IRL and with other stuff, and that this is a rather long article to review; I appreciate the patience throughout this. – MuZemike 03:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The sentence, " Contemporary architects Richard Meier ('57),[288] designer of the Getty Center, and Peter Eisenman ('55),[289] designer of the Wexner Center for the Arts, are also Cornellians.[citation needed]' is properly cited. Fn 288 was added to prove that Meier is a Cornellian and Fn 289 was added to prove that Eisenman is a Cornellian, so I don't understand why the [citation needed] was added. Please explain what you needed cited. Racepacket ( talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
failed – I'm sorry, but I have to fail this GA nomination on verifiability issues alone plus the plagiarism I have found above. From what I have checked so far, at least 1/3 of the content is either not sourced or are not in the references given; most of the references are sorely out-of-date. It is clear that nobody has gone through and verified any of the content here before nominating for GA. The plagiarism I have found above is particularly inexcusable.
Before even attempting to renominate for GA or anything, check the content again the sources given, and get rid of anything else that looks like plagiarism. – MuZemike 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The list of alumni in this main article give the year of graduation without indicating whether it is an undergraduate or advanced degree. The Cornell Daily Sun style prints the school and year, which may be too much. Perhaps we should just indicate the graduate degree. For example, Jimmy Smits earned an MFA, but the article suggested that he got an undergraduate degree in 1982. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This should really be a good article, if not restored to Featured Article. How to people feel about taking another run up the hill? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 22:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit due to its potentially politically-motivated nature. Let us be agnostic of political leanings for a moment, though. We can consider dimensions like these ones:
I think six photos is probably enough in the main article, especially when more detailed articles exist to discuss alumni, so the question is perhaps which six alumni would form the best "balance" of notability and equal representation. — Bill Price ( nyb) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe we can use this website for pictures, after all it does say for the "general public", thus releasing all the pictures to the use of the general public. These pictures are awesome!! --Cornell010 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.asergeev.com/php/searchph/search.php?test=&keywords=cornell&mode=&year1=1996&month1=1&day1=1&year2=2006&month2=12&day2=31&lum=&hue=&order=AUTO
It seems like nearly every image features the clocktower and/or Uris Library. There's a lot more on campus, can we make the page a little more diverse? - Mercuryboard 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, Cornell redirects to Cornell University. This is how it should be. But do we really need to say "you've been redirected!" when most people would be at their correct destination anyway? Why not just this:
- Mercuryboard 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say the Hotel School is tops but I can't find any sources to support it. I know there are quotations out there but that's not really solid enough evidence; I'd rather have a ranking. Anybody know of anything? - Mercuryboard 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring out that we also need to really work on this school's page, it's atrocious.--Cornell010 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need all these links to main articles. Almost 70% of them are short, and the same information is covered here on this article. For example, we do not need the main article for Qatar campus, it's pointless.--Cornell010 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There has already been some discussion on how this section should look (look in archive 2 under Cornell Safety Car). I believe there was some agreement among several editors that the research section should be more of a broad overview, with one line mentions of various things like the Cornell Safety Car, Mars rovers, etc., with links to the main articles on this stuff. I think one problem with this approach is that it relies on editors having this great overview of all of Cornell's research. It seems a tremendous task, which I think explains the lack of expansion.
As another proposal, let me suggest that it is not so bad to have these little subsections. I think there's always going to be a lack of energy in creating them, so there's little danger of getting overloaded. We can always snip and tighten things up if things get too long. We should just make sure to give a nice cross-section of research so as to avoid giving a narrow view; right now, we have computers/internet, space exploration, particle accelerators, car safety. Some stuff from biology/medicine would be good here, maybe veterinary stuff. -- C S (Talk) 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
given that so many of the individual dorm articles seem to be one line repetitive stubs, I created a new article for West Campus at Cornell West Campus. It would seem to be more logical to organize all of the information about the West Campus intiative in one article instead of in each residential college's article, but that might just be me. The article is still a rough draft. The hyperlinks for Cook and Becker in the article are currently pointing to external links, as I'm not sure if they should just point to stubs or not, feel free to change those to inter-wiki links if you feel that it is more appropriate.-- Moki80 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a link to a Newsweek listing of "25 Hot Schools"--Cornell the "best school for city-haters." :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626574/site/newsweek/
Adds some support for being "well regarded for scenic beauty," if anyone wants to incorporate it?
Should we merge the North Campus stubs as we have with West Campus? We could always branch off with {{mainarticle}} for Risley Hall. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We need to really work on the articles about the various colleges. I've tried to work on them, however, I don't really know much about them, and so we all need to get together and work on them.--Cornell010 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, if anyone knows anyone in NYC then tell them to take a nice pleasant walk by the Weill Medical center and snap some digital photographs. I would have tried mine, but they're in Florida. BTW, did anyone see the collegeconfidential posting about weill, it seems the word is spreading, perhaps now we will finally succeed at obtaining a Weill photograph!!!--Cornell010 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
They have this continuous layout approach which looks really good, maybe we should try it.--Cornell010 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In the article we have two unsourced facts. Search for 'citation' in the article to find them. The statements are:
Not only are they unsourced, but they're vague. We need to find a list of the country's largest university presses, or something that states exactly where Cornell fits. We also need to find the annual SAFC budget, or how much they give out. We are so close to FA, let's just get these last issues ironed out. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Discuss.--Cornell010 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I recently passed this article. I could tell that a lot of work had gone into the article's development and it closely follows the most important wikipedia guidelines. While I was slightly concerned with this article’s use of boosterism, I did not see this as a fatal flaw. There are significant obvious attempts to maintain a NPOV and avoid uncorroborated phrases of praise. It is definitely no worse than FA University of Michigan. In regard to boosterism, my biggest concern is the "Do not bury the reader in facts" portion. After reading this LENGTHY article as well as some linked articles, I can assure you that my brain did not successfully soak up all the information. I acknowledge, however, that most readers won't read these in their entirety and thus can soak more up. However, it might be helpful to create new articles and shorten some of the sections. Additionally, there may be some other minor issues, but the major issue (that can be easily remedied) to me was the flow of the article. The ordering of the sections seems illogical to me, particularly the alumni section. After reading about academics, as a reader, I expect to learn about the other aspects of Cornell life besides academics (i.e. research and student life). Talking about graduates before finishing up on what students and faculty do while at the university seems premature. Personally, I’d put the alumni section after research. In general, this article is well-written, follows a NPOV in the vast majority of cases, has properly tagged and helpful images, and is verifiable. Thus, a good article indeed! -- Bluedog423 03:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
On April 19, 1969, during a parents' weekend, over eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall. The takeover was precipitated by increasing racial tension at the university and the students' frustration with the administration's lack of support for a black studies program. On April 20, the takeover ended, with Cornell ceding to the Afro-American Society's demands. The students emerged making a black-power salute and with guns in hand (the guns had been brought into Willard Straight Hall after the initial takeover). James A. Perkins, president of Cornell during the events, would resign soon after the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.11 ( talk • contribs)
This might take a few days and a few editors. Rather than making intermediate steps public on Cornell University, or duplicating work that somebody else may be doing, let's all work on /alumni sandbox until it's ready to go public. - mercuryboard talk ♠ 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
How about if we mention how Cornell is known for giving out little financial aid, this might be a rumor, but it's worth a try. Also, we could talk about how people have complained about Cornell's rank being in the teens instead of in the top ten for USNWRs.-- 134.67.6.11 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should scrap the last line, it's already established that it is a "private research university", thus we don't need the money figures.-- User:Cornell010 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we ready?-- User:Cornell010 17:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-- ElKevbo 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been proposed that the history article be merged into this main article. It would make the article (which will be an FA in a few days) far too long, and violates WP:SUMMARY. See also History of Michigan State University. Oppose. — mercuryboard talk 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The titles of the 4 contract colleges begin with "New York State" and do not mention Cornell University. Not only are their affiliations with Cornell far more important than their affiliations with New York State, but none of the official college websites use the New York State designation in their names. The university website lists the colleges alongside their endowed peers, with an asterisk denoting the New York-supported ones. Google searches indicate that generally, NYS is not mentioned in the college names. I say we should change the page names, i.e. New York State College of Human Ecology -> Cornell University College of Human Ecology, and mention additional affiliations (such as with NYS) on the college pages. — mercuryboard talk 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
On the cornell website the motto is simply "any person .... any study" cornell010 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm requesting that we ask that Cornell be the Featured Article of the Day on Friday, September 8, so that the Sun can run a little blurb about it and Cornell students can take a gander at our handiwork. I know, it's a ways off, but for both Wikipedia and for getting interested eyes to come and help improve the article, I think it's better to wait until school is in session. I've appended the request for Featured Article of the Day status to reflect this. JDoorj a m Talk 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that a section on future developments would add a great deal to the page. However, we could just relegate it to the separate sections of each college. What are your thoughts? Cornell010 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
(taken from my userpage) Hello- I am extemely offended by the insinuation that my edits to the Cornell wikipedia page were in any way biased. If anything, I was extremely purturbed to come accross the entry that I have been trying to edit as it originally was. If you are going to talk about that Resolution by the Student Assembly (which I don't find necessary as it has nothing to do with Cornell's history, or the Student Assembly's current or future initatives), then at least qualify it as what it was-- a very unique piece of legislation that PASSED with FLYING COLORS and set a tremendous precedent for other student governments across the country. I don't see what it has to do with the SA's money management, and don't recall that coming up at all during the last few months. As such, please respect my edit, as it is not misrepresenting the resolution of university whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.25.15 ( talk • contribs)
I just made some minor edits to clean up the linking on the Student Activities section. It's probably not perfect, but you should definitely decide what should be linked in context and not. For example, in a sentence like "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf" you don't want to end up with "Cornell students enjoy playing sports like basketball and hockey, and also golf." Please see good links for more information. Elliott C. Bäck 07:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The way the current section "alumni" is written, it seems intended to focus entirely on graduates. Recently, someone removed Huey Lewis because he did not graduate, although he would technically be an alumnus. Perhaps this section is only meant to include graduates in which case the section heading should be changed to "graduates". -- C S (Talk) 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would add Huey Lewis back but... while he is an alum, I'm not sure if he is a "Cornellian". I believe "Cornellian" refers only to graduates, although I may be mistaken. That's one reason I thought the section heading of "graduates" may be more appropriate. -- C S (Talk) 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this figure correct?-- Cornell010 18:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is something to look at: > [2]
I think we have the finest presence of any university on Wikipedia. — mercuryboard talk 03:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does Cornell admit anyone with less than a first class honours degree into their graduate programmes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk) 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Is there anyway we can fix this problem? I believe that the root of the problem is the footnote section in the university info-box. Cornell010 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The history section has a rather glaring change in scope. The paragraph about the 1969 incident is fitting for a longer and much more detailed listing of historical incidents that have shaped Cornell policies. In its current location, it's been shoehorned in between "the first students were admitted" and "over the twentieth century, many changes", which seem to go together much more smoothly but at a much vaguer level.
Could this be rearranged to either minimize/outlink the incident or make it part of a longer and more detailed timeline? Right now it breaks the flow something awful. (Yes, I know, "fix it yourself", but I know nothing about Cornell and I'm thus poorly qualified for this task.) Mana Gement 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
See Penn's gallery section at the bottom of the article. I think it adds a nice touch and with carefully selected images the section can showcase Cornell's beauty as well as prestige. Some photos of Cornell have a way of exuding prestige and accomplishment.
-- angelrendon 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
^ Good idea. Princeton's section is also an example.
There is a loose reference to "5 billion dollar endowment" in the article on the new investment chief. This would mean that the endowment grew from 3.77 to 5.0 billion (~33%) in one year, which smells of error. Nevertheless, rabid alumni post the number everywhere, inserting it in lists of numbers otherwise referring to 6/2005 values (and falsely inflating Cornell's rank). In contrast here is a specific reference to 4.4 billion in investments under Cornell's control as 0f 8/20/2006 (from Cornell itself). This seems like a more expected, reasonable growth of the endowment. It's clearly from Cornell and it's more precise. Why not use it? Or at least acknowledge it in a footnote? Or should we pick and choose what information to show to make Cornell look strongest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.68.223 ( talk • contribs)
Ok. I'm ok with keeping the 5.0 on this page; but I have a strong feeling the 4.4 is correct, and we'll see this come out in a month or two as schools start leaking their year end values. Anybody else?
Would Dear Uncle Ezra be worth mentioning in the article? -- Kjoon lee 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not the main article, but it might be worth its own separate article. I believe Columbia's equivalent service has its own article.-- Xtreambar 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Execuse me. What is the annual endownment. To be precise: What amount of money does the university spend in a year on their expenses. I think this a more interesting figure than the whole endownment. Please add it to the page.
I'm not sure about the notable alumni section... its a lot of linkage and, when read all together (i.e. not just from a copyediting or writer's perspective), is pretty dry. Anyone else agree? Someone should find a friendlier picture than Wolfowitz, but that's just personal taste. ;)
The other thing is, has anyone ever heard of Cornell notes? Perhaps it's not significant enough for the already-extensive article, but this note-taking format is widely used and to my knowledge has been adapted to many academic programs, one of which is used throughout the state of California, so it should probably get a mention somewhere IMO. Paliku 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article will go up on the main page in the next 24 hours. I encourage people to read over the page again. Though little has changed in the past couple months, a once-over wouldn't hurt. -- Xtreambar 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The Daily Sun wrote about the FA-of-the-day-status of the Cornell University article. Again, good work, everybody! JDoorj a m Talk 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
How does one get the coordinates to appear at the top of the page? I would like to add them for another university page I am working on. Thanks! -- Daysleeper47 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says that Cornell was conceived after the American Civil War in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. According to the Industrial Revolution article, that was over, by the most liberal interpretation, by 1840. Am I missing something here? Right now, this rather jarring statement is on the front page of Wikipedia!-- Wehwalt 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As it now stands, the article does not adequately explain how a university that was originated by the New York State Senate as a land-grant school came to be a private institution. Sylvain1972 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to make some clarifications, but they were deleted by someone who does not understand the subtle relationship between the endowed and statutory colleges. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't delete. Racepacket 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jbacu1985 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The private/public distinction is not really relevant today - in my view it's meaningless. The more accurate description is that Cornell is substantively independent from the State of New York in setting its strategies and policies, and the use of land and endowment assets. The Cornell Board of Trustee's is 'vested with "supreme control" over the university. As NY State's Land Grant university, Cornell's mission - both in theory and in practice are as 'public' as most any university, however the state legislature cannot directly control how the mission and programs are delivered upon.
user racepacket changed the name of all the statutory colleges to say NYS; the truth is that the colleges have not had NYS in their name since 1971. Here is the proof http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/about/overview/index.cfm check "our roots." Quote: The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences evolved over the past century from the Department of Agriculture (1874), to the College of Agriculture (1888), to the New York State College of Agriculture (1904), to the present name (1971). These changes reflect our dedication to meeting society's ever-changing needs." Lastly, in cornell's website, it has all the names of the schools http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm which do not have NYS on them - mojojojo69 9:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The section below demonstrates a disturbing lack of continuity: There is a detailed account of the situation of the university in the middle of the 19th century immediately proceeding a description of racial strife one hundred years later.
Is there nothing noteworthy (at this level of detail) to report over the interveening hundred years?
I am reluctant to modify the text myself. (It is currently the article of the day). Better I let those who produced the article take charge of surgery.
The university was inaugurated on October 7, 1868, and 412 men were enrolled the next day.[9] Two years later, Cornell admitted its first women students, making it the first coeducational school among what came to be known as the Ivy League. Scientists Louis Agassiz and James Crafts were among the faculty members.[8]
In September 2006, David Skorton formally became Cornell's 12th and current presidentOn April 19, 1969, more than eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall.
--
Philopedia
22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I have wondered why no one else is bothered by the sloppy history section. I wrote the first two paragraphs and took the last one from an old version of the lead paragraph. What's up with the WSH takeover taking up half of the history section!?--
Xtreambar
18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the comments above. The WSH takeover "takes over" the history section. We need to trim it down to a more succinct and appropriate length.--
Parenthetical Guy
22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with those above who believe detail in the section overall is lacking. Much has happened between the Ezra vision and founding and today. That stuff's gotta be here!
I have been comparing the current edition with that of the September 14th (last before the September 20 editions), and found some differences... The reference to the "Sylvester Lloyd" incident is newly added. Almost the only source I could find for this was the one cited ( http://www.deltasigmatheta.com/hazenews/haze01.htm), with less than a dozen other webpages citing the source mentioned. Nor could I find any mention of one Sylvester Lloyd on the Cornell website (page search and people search), so I'm slightly skeptical about whether or not this actually took place. Would someone please confirm it with an independent reliable source? The founding date has been changed from "April 27, 1865" to "April 27 1865"; is the deletion of the comma appropriate? The caption of "Big Red Planet" has been changed to Mars. I think I prefer the title of "Big Red Planet" because it ties in better with the context. What's every else's opinion on this? Mimson 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Cornell has made public its endowment stats for fiscal year ending 6/30/2006, and the value is 4.3B as noted in http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/endowment.htm.
Cornell helped make it, why can't its picture be on this page?
I've removed Huey Lewis from this article for the second time. Please note that he definitely does not belong in the Alumni section since he dropped out before graduation.
Overall, the alumni section has some paragraphs that seem very sloppy and disorganized (especially the paragraphs on authors and entertainers). This needs to be cleaned up.
Bill Maher is mentioned in two seperate paragraphs. He is probably best categorized as an entertainer/comedian than a journalist (by his own account), so I have removed him from the list of journalists. User:keammo1 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Ratan Tata is worth mentioning in Cornell Alumni list. He is one of the most influential business figures in India. I saw his name here a couple of days ago, but it's not there any more.
Ratan Tata is on the List of Cornell University People under Business. He certainly seems worthy of being listed on the main Cornell University page. If you want him there, put him there. -- Cjs56 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-Well I tried, but it keeps getting deleted for some reason.
I still don't see why Huey Lewis needs to get mentioned. The article is long. Make room for other alumni who actually graduated. Is anyone with me on this? Against? In any case, it's extremely confusing to start the section with "Graduates of Cornell are known as 'Cornellians'." and then go on to mention people that did not graduate! Huey Lewis should either be out, or something needs to be done to make it clear that he is not a Cornell graduate. My feeling is to just take him out. Yes, I know it's a fun fact that he attended Cornell for a while, but does he really need mention in the Alumni section? Let's please settle this - User:keammo1 4:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence defining "Cornellian" in that way was probably a mistake. Usage of "Cornellian" can include alumni, faculty, etc.; this is the definition used on List_of_Cornell_University_people. It's a bad idea to weed out the section, keeping only graduates. Then we would have to take out Kurt Vonnegut. If your issue is notability, there are very notable former students more famous than some of the graduates listed. So keeping only graduates is not workable. If you have some other scheme in mind, please describe it on this talk page. At this point, removing one name (Huey Lewis) is rather pointless. -- C S (Talk) 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the Wolfowitz pic keeps getting deleted?
Methinks perhaps vandalism? I've had to put it back the magical three times -- Cjs56 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an insult to all Cornellians to have his picture on this website...much as the same as any Cornellian is ashamed to admit that Anne Coulter is a graduate.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.84.85.57 (
talk •
contribs)
Not all Cornell alumni would agree with your view of embarrassing.
National Research Council is the only official agency which ranks universities based on their long-term research achievments. It basically averages the perfomance of schools over a period of ten years and because of that, it is more robust (despite USNEWS rankings which could change every year).
Ten years is chosen because the time constant of change in universities is more than 10 years and hence the data is valid even if it is 10 years old (look at sampling rate and bandwidth according to Nyquist!). for more information, please look at their homepage.
The last ranking goes back to 1995 and the next one will be out in September 2007 (one year delay). Again, because of NRC method, the 1995 data is not considered old and is still the most relavant ranking among schools. Although some college students or their parents might pay attention to USNEWS because of its publicity.
It seems to be fair to have both rankings in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.225.153 ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
The NRC methodology is flawed, and this has been remarked upon and supposedly fixed in the new ones coming out. In my experience these rankings have drawn fire in the academic community particularly because of the appearance of being "better" or more "respectable" than US News rankings. I don't see any evidence that they really are so though. But this is all beside the point. They are well-known rankings and deserve mention just as much as any of these other rankings. -- C S (Talk) 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Might not be the proper forum to post this, but the article on the Cornell Glee Club is somewhat problematic and I'm wondering if there are any Cornell-affiliated people who might want to take a look at it - particularly (but not only) to see if the huge list of "Cornell Songs" might be whittled down to just the ones people today are actually aware of.-- Dmz5 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to see some consensus on this. I believe that the alumni pictures should be diverse (ex: 1 government and 1 something else). I was just wondering if anyone had ideas of what types of people should have their picture in the alumni section.
I like the current two pictures, however, if there was a Toni Morrison picture I would put it up there.
thanks.--Cornell010 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think other alumni need to be represented in picture form here too. Bill Nye (the Science Guy) is a good candidate for starters.
The pictures will look awesome, since Cornell has all this snow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornell010 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit: i admit it; i'm a wiki/html/etc noob...how do I get this to be a normal looking topic like all the other ones?]
Some of the articles for individual colleges, especially College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Arts and Sciences, Human Ecology, and even Weill Med. College seem to be lacking. Chose to insert this topic in overall university discussion rather than in those colleges' pages because their discussions are virtually dead :P But seriously, i think these pages need some work. Anyone willing to pitch in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.89.167 ( talk • contribs)
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to make pages concerning the club sports in Cornell such as Ultimate Frisby, Squash, Table Tennis, Karate, Taekwondo, and the like. I would be willing to make contributions but can anyone else follow me up on this?
I am hoping that some of the fine editors who have worked on this article could lend their eyes to my Georgetown University article. In working on Georgetown's article, I look at Cornell's often for inspiration, so I was wondering if I could get advice. I put it up for peer review, but more important would be the thoughts of the editors of a similar university. I am here because Cornell, like Georgetown, is a historic, private, well respected, research university, and should have basically similar article styles. Besides any advice on article content, such as what's missing or what's unnecessary, I'm looking for ideas on how to better move up the wikipedia foodchain to FA status like Cornell. How, at a smaller school, can I get more people involved? Who/where is good to ask for assistance? What should I avoid doing when posting it as a featured article candidate? Thanks for any time you can share.-- Patrick 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just in the process of replying (I had to dig the exact page name up first...). The only FU rationale on the page was the following:
Fair use rational: Illustrates the logo in question. {{no rationale}} {{Non-free logo}}
This doesn't describe how the logo itself contributes to the reader's understanding of the article(s) in question, et cetera. Also, could you give me a list of what articles/templates this was used on? Thanks, ^ demon [omg plz] 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) SO where did the logo come from? cOrneLlrOckEy 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's what ^demon deleted:
-- Xtreambar 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to have a picture of the water-fall and the picture of the plantations, I think that we should choose one or the other ;having both pictures results in over-crowding in that part of the page. Cornell010
I just stumbled across some information about a briefly lived college at Cornell called the State College of Forestry at Cornell. Apparently it existed from 1901 until June 17, 1903 when the Board of Trustees voted to dissolve the college due to lack of state support. See NYT June 18, 1903 "Cornell School of Forestry Suspended" perhaps someone wants to take a crack at an article about this since defunct college at Cornell.-- Xtreambar 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought an interesting section to have would be to mention characters in movies, tv shows, or other media that feature a Cornell connection. I know off the top of my head the short lived TV show "Over There" had a US soldier that was a Cornell graduate. Life Time Movie network also had some movie called ""When Innocence Is Lost" that featured a character that gets accepted to Cornell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.230.193 ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Cornell has the highest suicide rate of any university in America. WHY isn't it mentioned in the article? Come on, people. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are these on the main page. They should be linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.159.108 ( talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of cleanup and no longer complies with WP:WIAFA; I will check back in in a few weeks to see if a featured article review should be initiated, or if cleanup and citation has been accomplished. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that the West Campus rehab is complete, shouldn't we cut down on the level of detail in the main article and move this to the Cornell West Campus article? Racepacket ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The location of Cornell was incorrectly identified as Jackson Maine. I changed it to Ithaca NY. At least...I hope it's still there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GibbonsRUs ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am editing the page as per Featured Article removal suggestions. Things need to be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.245.248 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cornell's Endowment at the end of the June 30, 2008 fiscal year was $5.39 Billion. The Bloomburg reference says it shrunk 27% which would put it at $3.93 Billion. One editor changed the figure and added the Bloomburg article as a footnote, but another editor set it back to $5.39. I think that the $3.93 is more accurate, but I can't find any other sources for it. The Sun merely quotes Bloomburg.
Writing about the endowment size is always tricky. Cornell has at least four different funds which collectively could be viewed as its "endowment." The "endowment" strictly defined is the assets which have been donated to Cornell limiting the use of the principle but with the earnings going to support a University purpose. Other funds are the current fund (in effect, Cornell's money market account), funds where there is no legal restriction on the use of the principle but as a matter of policy Cornell wants to invest it, and funds given to Cornell where the donor keeps the income for life.
Years ago, most colleges reported their endowments as the marketable securities which they held, but now so many schools invest in hedge funds, real estate, and other less-liquid assets, so it hard to value them and hard to draw the line between endowment and non-endowment assets. Racepacket ( talk) 13:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Lead is gigantic! 129.105.19.151 ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: By devoting most of the first paragraph to mention of the contract college and land grant system, I and several other alumni feel we are foregoing an opportunity to make a more elegant lead-in. I remember that when researching the university and trying to decide between Cornell and UC Berkeley, I was quite put off by this paragraph. I did not understand what a land-grant school was, and upon learning about the designation, I did not see how it was relevant enough to be in the very first paragraph. We agree that the land grant status is unique and deserving of mention, but we do not understand why this mechanical fact needs to be at the forefront of Cornell's image. Thank you all for your consideration. -Blake Anderson et al., Class of 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.165.3 ( talk) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As you know, a Wikipedia editor had interpreted the web page at: http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/About-Our-College/More_About_Us/history.cfm to somehow imply that in 1969, the New York State legislature had deleted the words "New York State" from the names of the four statutory colleges. I am please to announce that the Human Ecology webmaster has now corrected that page to reflect the current full legal name of the school and to avoid any further confusion. Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.85.247.51 (
talk)
19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
...Forbes ranked Cornell the 207th-best college in the United States here. Something tells me the methodology of their ranking system is a bit off... — Notyourbroom ( talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
DEAR EDITORS,
I recently added, under 'admission', a sentence on the lines of "Cornell uses legacy admission" followed by a reference. This was deleted; i.e., it was a breach of the wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 ( talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a picture of a water fall close to campus. Feel free to move to a better spot in the article, but the International section was empty, and something is needed to illustrate how big a part the outdoors scene plays at Cornell. ("Ithaca is gorges," anyone?) — Eustress talk 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Upon all the college brochures and papers, the motto has been shortened to "Any person, any study." Should a change be made, or a note added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.61.85 ( talk) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Under the Academics>Financial Aid section, there's this sentence: "Even after the decree, all Ivy League schools continue to award aid on financial need without offering any athletic scholarships." Is this true? And did I miss seeing a source for this, or should it be deleted? Woken Wanderer ( talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like either of these recently-added sections. I'll split my comments into two parts and sign in three places. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I consider myself to be primarily inclusionist in philosophy, this article is already significantly too long, and so I don't envision the equivalent of "in popular culture" being a germane or helpful addition to the article. edited to add: This does not preclude the possibility of someone founding an article on the topic (if there isn't one already), but I don't think it's a good idea to clutter up the main-topic article with ancillary information like that. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Revised: — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to bury these, as they've certainly been newsworthy. However, at present, it's just tacked onto the end of the article as a main-heading addendum. The information could be incorporated into the article somewhere (I haven't dug through to pick out possibilities yet) but it's stylistically very clumsy to have postscripts like that one added to articles. — Notyourbroom ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the statement:
"Cornell hosts the second largest fraternity and sorority system in North America, with 70 chapters involving 33% of male and 24% of female undergraduates."
I believe is pretty untrue. I did some of my own research, enough I believe to remove the "second-largest" part, which is all I'm concerned with. I go to Cornell and find it an irritating urban legend.
The references to the statement are both nonexistent. Presumably, the reference for the "second largest" part is from a web page from a fraternity at Cornell.
1. ^ "Go Greek!". Scorpion TKE. http://www.scorpiontke.org/rush/greek. Retrieved 2006-06-09.
US News seems to support, independently (which actually seems to be drawn from a now-nonexistent webpage on Cornell's website) the percentages. (Also, US News's numbers for sororities are completely wrong and just seem to be a copy of the fraternity numbers.) But the original source seems to be Cornell, but that link is of course broken.
^ a b c "Fraternity & Sorority Advisory Council Annual Report 2004–2005" (PDF). Cornell University. http://www.dos.cornell.edu/FSA/PDFs/OFSA_AR05_smaller.pdf. Retrieved 2006-05-22.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/most-frats
Cornell students in the Greek system: Roughly 3,990
So, it just always seemed to me that it was unlikely that a school with 14,000 students in the Greek system would have more than these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment
Just taking the two biggest party schools, using numbers from a couple college information websites:
Arizona State:
15 percent live on campus in a dorm or fraternity/sorority house.
An old Wikipedia article claimed without citation that 9% of Cornell undergraduates reside in Greek housing, so even only using 15% for Arizona State, it should safely be an underestimate.
>7,000 using generous rounding
University of Florida:
Undergrad Men in Fraternities - 14% Undergrad women in sororities - 20%
7,200 using generous rounding
So these are 80% larger than Cornell's estimated number. It has been suggested that they meant the second-largest number of chapters, which is pretty much the last way anyone would interpret "second largest," and there's no reason to believe that's accurate, anyway. It's not by students and it's not by percentage. This should be enough evidence to at least remove "second largest" until someone can find a real source.
And don't worry, I'd already done the research for an unrelated reason, so I didn't do all this just for two words in a Wikipedia article. Fitzgerald ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Fitzgerald
The new history section includes the dubious claim: "No other coeducational institution of higher learning existed in the United States at the time [1873], so this was a revolutionary step in the development of modern higher education in America." Besides the peacockish framing (the entire second phrase), the first phrase is simply factually wrong: women were admitted to the University of Wisconsin in 1863, Northwestern admitted women in 1869, women were admitted to MIT and Michigan in 1870, and certainly Mt. Holyoke, Vassar, and Wellesley were all founded before 1870. See to it that this claim is removed. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To be frank, I still think the history section is in extremely poor shape. The current revision preserves or reinforces the already disproportionate weight assigned to Cornell's not-entirely revolutionary vision for coeducational education. However, there is no substantive discussion of its changes in response to industrialization at the turn of the 19th century, the impact of the World Wars and Depression, post-war growth, student protests in 1960s & 70, etc. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the clutter between 22–26 July 2010. My most recent overhaul was to ensure that every single <ref> tag contained a {{cite}} template rather than a URL or other bare/periphrastic citation. I did not generally check other references (i.e., those using a {{cite}} template) for completion or accuracy. At present, the only "nonstandard" in-line citation is the footnote in the introduction that says "The other is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." There's no reason to modify that, as it's just a footnote and not actually a citation. I ran the error-checker of Wikipedia:RefToolbar_1.0 (the "refToolPlus" version, I think?) and it can detect no other errors or concerns. — Bill Price( notyourbroom) 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ranking year | Tag | Defined? | Status |
---|---|---|---|
2006 | <ref name="princeton"> | Yes | Established "princeton" |
2007 | <ref name="princeton"/> | No | Ambiguous reference; plus, 2006 and 2009 would both have been incorrect as antecedents. |
2009 | <ref name="princeton"> | Yes | Overwrote the 2006 "princeton" |
— Bill Price( notyourbroom) 21:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See this edit. For future reference, parenthetical footnotes (or whatever they're called) should be added <ref group="note">like this</ref> while in-line citations should follow the normal <ref name="...">{{cite ...}}</ref> format. As long as that standard is adhered to, the two will remain properly sorted from each other at the bottom of the article. (I noticed this was done in the Atom article and thought it'd be worth copying.) — Bill Price( notyourbroom) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Good Article Criteria can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria
The criteria are as follows (taken from the above link).
A good article is—
Please edit with yes or no, and if no, please explain why is does not meet good article standards. Please also sign each line as you fill it in.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Okay, let's shoot for Good Article ASAP! Adavis444 ( talk) 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Added the 2010 Forbes ranking to the template. The template still generates citations for 2009 rankings, though, so it will need to be fixed eventually. — Bill Price ( nyb) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I notice a recent edit by Notyourbroom that tries to clarify Cornell's status in the lead, private or public. I agree that the footnote which is linked to gives a good explanation, but it makes the lead more sluggish when it has a lot of footnotes. It would be better to make the same information visible in the lead, even in a reduced form, right in the prose itself. At present the lead consists of four paragraphs, and the first paragraph is just one sentence. How about adding a second sentence which would clarify the private/public stuff? My suggestion is to change the first paragraph of the lead to the following:
Cornell University ( /kɔrˈnɛl/, kor-NEL) is an Ivy League university located in Ithaca, New York. It is a private land-grant university which receives funding from the State of New York for certain educational missions.
The explanation of the second sentence follows in the Organization section of this article so no additional note machinery would be needed. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Talk:Cornell University was copied or moved into Cornell University with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No recent issues noted
I've begun to reorganize the article to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE and add some missing substantive content (Carnegie Classifications, accreditation, academic calendar, etc.). Further work needs to be done in the following areas:
Cheers. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just documenting this stuff that I see unfolding... I'm not making any accusations or recommendations—I just have a feeling that this information may be beneficial in the future. — Bill Price ( nyb) 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't have that much of a problem with the block quote but the GA reviewers of both Cornell University and History of Cornell University had concerns. It is a lot of verbiage to make the point that Ezra Cornell considered sectarianism to be a larger potential problem than was later appreciated. Given that sectarianism proved not to be a big problem over the long term, is the quote worth fighting over? Racepacket ( talk) 04:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note a great series of Cornell-related images at asergeev.com (#474-479) , which are freely licensed at Commons through Commons:Template:Alex Sergeev permission.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone added that the $80 million gift to fund the sustainability center is the "largest". However, in 2007, Sandy Weill pledged $250 million, resulting in the Medical College being named after Weill. Racepacket ( talk) 03:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Cornell's west campus has changed enormously in the past five or six years. The thumbnail to the right is pasted exactly as it appears in the article. This photo dates from 2005 and is not at all representative of housing on West anymore. I'll change the photo to something else in a bit. — Bill Price ( nyb) 01:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I just rediscovered these photos, which were improperly categorized. — Bill Price ( nyb) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – MuZemike 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
between numbers and units of measurement, between months and dates (i.e. July 4), months and years (i.e. November 2010), large dollar amounts (i.e. $20 million), between the address number and street name in physical addresses, and before roman numerals (i.e. World War II)History section:
"Financial aid" subsection, 4th paragraph, from the article:
From the source ( http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jan08/finAid.html):
[six paragraphs later]
This is straight-up plagiarism; there was no effort made to paraphrase anything here.
In progress – basically, this is a start for this review, and I still need to go over the prose and references in detail. This may take a while due to the size of the article, but the above is a starting point for some of the things that need to be improved. – MuZemike 03:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Update (December 10) – I went through all the prose and made some copyediting, mostly in the part of adding non-breaking spaces where needed, combination of a couple paragraphs, and minor corrections in punctuation, grammar, and usage. I also went through and added {{ citation needed}} tags on stuff that was unsourced (see "Verifiability issues" above). Overall, the prose is very good and definitely passable for GA.
Next I plan to check the sources to make sure everything in the article are in the citations given. With regards to deadlinks, I also plan to check through all those and see if any of them no longer work. Again, apologies for the slow progress on the review, as I was busy IRL and with other stuff, and that this is a rather long article to review; I appreciate the patience throughout this. – MuZemike 03:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The sentence, " Contemporary architects Richard Meier ('57),[288] designer of the Getty Center, and Peter Eisenman ('55),[289] designer of the Wexner Center for the Arts, are also Cornellians.[citation needed]' is properly cited. Fn 288 was added to prove that Meier is a Cornellian and Fn 289 was added to prove that Eisenman is a Cornellian, so I don't understand why the [citation needed] was added. Please explain what you needed cited. Racepacket ( talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
failed – I'm sorry, but I have to fail this GA nomination on verifiability issues alone plus the plagiarism I have found above. From what I have checked so far, at least 1/3 of the content is either not sourced or are not in the references given; most of the references are sorely out-of-date. It is clear that nobody has gone through and verified any of the content here before nominating for GA. The plagiarism I have found above is particularly inexcusable.
Before even attempting to renominate for GA or anything, check the content again the sources given, and get rid of anything else that looks like plagiarism. – MuZemike 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The list of alumni in this main article give the year of graduation without indicating whether it is an undergraduate or advanced degree. The Cornell Daily Sun style prints the school and year, which may be too much. Perhaps we should just indicate the graduate degree. For example, Jimmy Smits earned an MFA, but the article suggested that he got an undergraduate degree in 1982. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This should really be a good article, if not restored to Featured Article. How to people feel about taking another run up the hill? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 22:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit due to its potentially politically-motivated nature. Let us be agnostic of political leanings for a moment, though. We can consider dimensions like these ones:
I think six photos is probably enough in the main article, especially when more detailed articles exist to discuss alumni, so the question is perhaps which six alumni would form the best "balance" of notability and equal representation. — Bill Price ( nyb) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)