Talk:Columbia University/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cruft

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

But Koronet's kicks ass! :P --Tyrant007 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Koronet's does kick ass. Or at least its pizza causes digestive problems. Regardless, that isn't the point of the article. :D DCB4W 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates?

An anon recently added

By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates

along with some other blatant boosterism.

I think this statement is flat-out factually wrong and have snipped it.

Stand, Columbia, appendix E, table 3.2 (a Columbia source!) says:

3.2 Leading American University Producers of PhDs, 1861–1900

First PhD, Institution, Total to 1900 1878, Johns Hopkins, 549

1861, Yale, 346

1873, Harvard, 272

1875, Columbia. 264

1892, Chicago, 179

1872, Cornell, 146

"one of the nation's earliest centers for graduate education" seems justified, but Columbia was obviously just part of the crest of a wave. Yale is the only one that stands out of the pack as "early," and Johns Hopkins clearly was the "leading producer" at the close of the 1900s. Columbia produced about half as many as Johns Hopkins, and fewer than Yale or Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not boosterism, since it refers to quantity rather than quality. I'm sure the numbers you cite are accurate, but by 1900 (remember that the article refers to the END of the 19th century; your figures are from earlier periods) Columbia had overtaken its peers and was awarding more than 8% of all doctorates granted in the U.S. each year. No other American institution granted as many. Columbia's percentage did not begin to shrink substantially until after World War II, when the G.I. Bill and other government programs enabled many smaller universities to either open or expand their own graduate schools.

"One of the earliest centers for graduate education." Why we should mention the others

On 9 March, 64.61.107.115 added the unsourced item:

The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as one of the nation's earliest centers for graduate education.

It was coupled with an inaccurate claim that "By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates" when, in fact, it wasn't even close to being the leading producer of doctorates even in the United States.

You are mistaken. See the prior section.

Now, "one of the earliest" is one of these peacocky claims that means nothing in particular by itself. Does it mean one of the first three? The first ten? the first hundred? My experience so far is that these vaguely worded "one of the most" claims are usually made when the thing is not, in fact, in the top three. If we're to mention it at all, and mentioning it was not my idea, we should provide more specific context. So, I edited it to read:

The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as an early center for graduate education, awarding its first PhD in 1875 (following Yale in 1862, Cornell in 1872, and Harvard in 1873).[1]

I think this puts things clearly into context. Yale actually does lead everyone else, and by more than a decade. What follows then is a number of universities, all introducing Ph.D. programs at about the same time, during what was obviously a wave of post-Civil-War university expansion. In that context, Columbia is certainly early, but not a pioneer. It is not, in fact, a particularly notable characteristic of Columbia. With regard to when they introduced European-style Ph.D. programs, Yale is notable as being the first, and Johns Hopkins is notable as being by far the most productive. Columbia was just doing what all the leading U. S. universities were doing.

141.152.246.127 snipped the mention of the colleges with earlier graduate programs with the edit comment "why compare who was first?" (I am also extremely annoyed that 141.152.246.127 also removed the supporting reference.)

Now, why even say that Columbia's program was "early?" I'd be perfectly happy to say that "Columbia issued its first Ph.D. in 1975" and leave it at that. But if we must characterize it as "early," then it is only reasonable to show the reader what exactly is meant by early. I've moved this to a footnote, but making a comparative characterization ("early") but suppressing the basis for comparison (who, exactly, was earlier and by how much) is dishonest. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand a recent change ("an early" to "yet another") seems tendentious to me in the other direction... I'm happy enough with "an early" as long as the footnote is only a click away to give a specific answer to the question "what do they mean by that, exactly?'" That is, the specific names of the earlier institutions need to be there, but don't necessarily need to be in the reader's face. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fifth/sixth oldest

IMHO the only neutral thing to do is to say "fifth or sixth oldest" and present the details in a note.

We should acknowledge Columbia's own claim to be fifth[2], and the AFAIK undisputed fact that it was chartered fifth.

However, Penn, though chartered after Columbia, was founded before Columbia. Even if one thinks Penn's 1740 date is bogus (and I am one who does think so), Penn was certainly founded no later than 1749, earlier than Columbia. So AFAIK it is also undisputed that Columbia was founded sixth.

Now, as to whether "founding" or "chartering" should "count," I think the date of "founding" is the one that is customarily used. The order of march in university processions is traditionally based on the date of founding (and the hosting institution customarily accepts the founding date self-reported by the guest institutions).

It's not neutral to selectively present only the definition of age that happens to give the more venerable result. I think it is patently dishonest to say simply "fifth" without explanation. Nor does "fifth oldest chartered" cut it. "Chartered fifth" would, but neutrality would still require something like "chartered fifth (founded sixth)." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert - help

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

Tradtions include minor club events

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

Well, it is an annual event sponsored by (the current incarnation of) a very old organization, so it probably would qualify as a tradition. It was never particularly well-attended when I was a student, though, so even though it's a tradition it may not be notable enough to mention. DCB4W 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• It drew a lot of people this year...lots of alumni and students from UPenn, even.

--cjs 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In film, television and the arts

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

Ficticious Columbians

Sorry, but Marvel Comics' "Peter Parker" attends the similarly fictitious "Empire University". While bearing a striking resemblence to the Morningside Heights campus (alright, the movie was *filmed* there), in fact the character is always refered in all the literature and other media as attending Emprire U.

Not that I think it should be in the article, but in the start of the first movie they DO call the place Columbia University at the beginning of the spider-exhibit tour, not Empire University. 64.131.190.113 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be in the article, true. Remove? Regardless, though I don't have a copy of the film handy, there is this resource from the owners of the character: http://www.marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man_(Peter_Parker). It plainly refers to "Empire State University". Perhaps there is an inconsistancy between the print world and the cinematic world on this issue.--Shoreranger 14:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On Will and Grace - Will went to Columbia - Grace didn't, she went to NYU

Al Gore?

The postcolonial scholar Edward Said taught at Columbia, where he spent virtually the entirety of his academic career, until his death in 2003. as was former Vice President and unsuccessful presidential candidate Al Gore, at the School of Journalism.

I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to say? Green Eyes On Television 03:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is ambiguous, but I think we can assume the author advocates for the inclusionn of Mr. Gore and Mr. Said in the text of the article.--Shoreranger 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore was a visiting professor at the journalism school for a single semester. He showed up once a week to co-teach a noncredit (but required) course. He also did some work outside of the classroom, but his visit is too insignificant to be included in this article or to justify calling him a Columbia faculty member.

History of Columbia University

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

I'm British, and I've never been near NY - but shouldn't there be something about Columbia's core curriculum? Isn't this a distinctive and historically important feature of Columbia education? If someone has already covered this and I haven't noticed, please bite me. Notreallydavid 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Core is not required throughout the University, only at Columbia College where it is noted, and discussed more fully in its own article at "Core Curriculum". Consider yourself bit, Brit.Shoreranger 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's all for my own good.Notreallydavid 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Washington Monthly?

What makes the blog "Washington Monthly" an authority on college rankings? Seems odd to place this into rankings compared to the Princeton Review or Newsweek. I suggest deletion.--Chuck Griffith 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it is a printed publication, not simply a "blog". For another: the debate on who is an "authority on college rankings" is just the point of an alternative to US News' version - such as the Washington Monthly's version. Just as good a questions is: What makes US News the *only* authority on college rankings? Further, the transparent method and clearly unique focus of the WM version makes it a viable and noteworthy counterpart to the US News rankings, and has been treated as a legitimate alternative by established media. I propose the notation stays.Shoreranger 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not call the methods used by "smart people" (to use the language they use in their "methodology") as transparent. The methodology suggested by WM does not have any transparency at all, and I would challenge you to reveal this as it is not on their website at this point. To paraphrase, they suggest a "trust us, we're smart" ideal. There's no quantiative research or study behind the methodology by WM. Being a printed publication is laughable when comparing the circulation and readership of other publications. Society has placed US News and the Princeton Review as legitimate sources of college rankings because of their actual transparent research/formulas. WM should not be placed above any other publication where WM does not provide any sources to their rankings or how they actually arrived to those rankings. If WM is intending to be an authority for college rankings, then perhaps, rather than single out Columbia, WM should try have their PR interns insert in all of the college wikis.--Chuck Griffith 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the use of Washington Monthly rankings in college articles for the following reasons:

1) It tends to be used selectively, i.e. it is typically cited when the Washington Monthly ranking is higher than the U. S. News ranking. (This does not apply in the case of Columbia, of course).

2) I've seen no evidence that it is taken seriously by ambitious parents, high school guidance counselors, etc. It is not considered a "real" ranking by those people foolish enough to pay much attention to school rankings;

3) It is a subversive effort on the part of Washington Monthly to change the way in which people evaluate schools. I personally happen to be in strong sympathy with this effort and I wish them the best of success, but it is an attempt to push a point of view. Citing a Washington Monthly ranking for a university is rather like citing an ADA ranking as a measure of the quality of a senator.

4) Their methodology is questionable, because Washington Monthly rankings have fluctuated bizarrely from year to year, even more widely than U. S. News ratings. The year it ranked MIT #1, the MIT boosters were hot to have it in the article, but the year before it had ranked number 20 or something like that, and nobody was able to come up with any halfway plausible explanation of what, exactly, MIT had done to merit a jump of twenty places in the ranking. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said!--Chuck Griffith 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you truely object to the use of WM ranking "in college articles" and not only for some unexplained reason for this Columbia article, you should get cracking at removing it from the significant number of references in a number of other college articles. A quick look at the "what links here" choice at the WU page shows a numbe of institution's articles have it. Conversely, since it is a fact that CU was ranked by WM, and that reference is also made to competing ranking systems with plainly stated different foci, I suggest you replace the mention of WU's ranking in this article.Shoreranger 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cornell, MIT, and Penn all have the WU ranking mentioned on their Wiki page, I see no reason it cannot be included here, despite the opinions noted above. I have returned the notation to this Wiki article myself. Everything is linked to. The reader can make up their own mind.Shoreranger 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to remove it from the MIT article. It was one of the first articles to mention the Washington Monthly, and for no obvious reason I can determine other than MIT happened to rank #1. I don't believe many MIT article editors were even aware of the existence of the Washington Monthly until that magazine paid MIT a compliment. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the entire class of schools that include Columbia should delete all references to magazine rankings to justify their reputation.

There's a slim justification for uniformly citing the U. S. News and World Report overall ranking number from the "top national universities" list, simply because this number is so influential. As nearly as I can tell, just about every other ranking number you see in Wikipedia articles about university rankings is invariably a case of selective citation. If a school mentions the number of Rhodes Scholars but not the number of Nobel Laureates, you can bet money it's because it has more of the former and fewer of the latter than its rivals. "Putting your best foot forward" is quite appropriate for a university's admission department or public relations "news" office, but a clear violation of neutrality in a Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Columbia Libraries

I checked Columbia web pages, and they state the library has 9.3, 9.2, and 8.6 million volumes. Which is accurate?

I doubt that it's even a meaningful question, for two reasons:

Although I'm sure some administator pencil-whips a column of numbers on pieces of paper and comes up with total, I seriously doubt that it is possible to count the number of "volumes" in a "university library" to an accuracy better than +/-10%, both because of vagueness in what counts as a "volume" and vagueness as to what counts as a "university library" (most universities contain big rooms full of books that are not administratively part of "the library." And most universities have outlying campuses, field stations, outreach programs etc. at varying distances from the central campus. Columbia has a geological laboratory located at Palisades, NY, for example. I'll bet it's got a big room full of books in it. Do they count?

Nor, even if it could be answered, do I think it's any more important that a count of, say, the number of electrical sockets in the Columbia libraries. Either of them is some kind of measure of how big the library is, and neither of them is more than the roughest indication of anything in particular.

My suggestion (as always) is to go with the American Library Association, on the assumption that they are a) library professionals, who b) presumably have made some effort to come up with comparable volume counts of different libraries, and the number they give is 7,697,488.

"About eight or nine million" would work, too.

(So... I did both. Worded it as "eight or nine million volumes," retained the reference to the 9.3 million "printed volumes" figure, and added the reference to the ALA's "7,697,488 volumes held" figure). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever check the dates each of these webpages were updated? Perhaps they have accumulated more volumes during the interim. Or lost a whole bunch... Valley2city 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

MinuteMen Protest

Changing "students attacked". There was no attack or even vague threats against the speakers' safety. In fact, reporters caught -- on tape -- Minutemen kicking a student in the HEAD right before the speech. The students stormed the stage, not attacked it.

Hey, 70.154.141.34, if you are going to describe the protestors "radical left wing," cite a reasonable source (or any source, for that matter). Otherwise, it's just POV. Leftist, maybe. "Radical"? Sez who?

Also, a source is needed for the claim that students "appeared to be the first to use physical force."

Kaydee1970 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of "Barnard jokes"

I removed a sub-section of “tradition” about Barnard jokes, due to its inappropriate nature to an encyclopedia. Matan 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I previously deleted the Barnard jokes article, so this user is clearly trying an alternative route to get this offensive nonsense in. If this becomes persistent behaviour, I'm prepared to take appropriate action such as protection or a user block. jimfbleak 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it very disappointing that you use your power as editors to enforce with such authority something of which you know nothing about. anybody who is part of the Columbia comunity knows about this and takes it with the levity it deserves.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.247.111)

I support the inclusion of this section without those examples. if nobody says otherwise, I will add it shortly.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.247.111)

I object to that section, with or without the “examples.” The fact that some people disrespect others in their community does not make it a “tradition,” and certainly does not warrant an encyclopedia entry. The author of this section claims that Barnard jokes (=jokes about women) is a “long standing tradition.” The proof? An opinion piece by one student in the school newspaper. Not an article about the so-called tradition, not a research paper on the origins of said tradition. One person’s opinion. (and the opinion isn’t even about the so-called tradition, but about the problems of creating a cohesive community out of 4 undergraduate colleges). So if I start a blog tomorrow about the “tradition” of “varsity sports jokes,” then the tradition must exist. Right? This isn’t tradition, its slur. Lets keep it out. Matan 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Matan. jimfbleak 06:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Matan, you and I have gone to Columbia so surely you must have noticed the Orgo Nights (and various other Marching Band performances), Varsity Shows, The Fed, Jester, and Blue & White, and notice that it is indeed tradition, at least for 40 years (read the archives of the CUMB scripts). Valley2city 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I glad I didn't go to Columbia? Sounds like a kindergarden for adolescent boys. jimfbleak 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Valley2city, I disagree. None of these things make these jokes a university tradition. If it is “tradition” for the Marching Band jester to make these jokes, write about it in the marching band article. Additionally, the marching band, the Fed, the B&W and the Varsity Show make jokes (good and bad) about everything. I am sure I could find an anti-Semitic joke in each Fed issue… would that make it a University tradition to make fun of Jews? Matan 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed the section on Barnard jokes. Dear anonymous users, if you honestly wish to include this section, it would be best if you created an account (it makes it easier for other users to communicate with you), and reach a consensus on this page first. Matan 04:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon is using a Colombia University computer, so I'm reluctant to block, but that or semi-protection will have to be the next step if this continues. jimfbleak 07:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. plenty of sourcing has been given to the tradition. assuming this is in fact a tradition (and it is) what other than marching band skits, the fed, the BnW, the Spectator and the Varsity show can you cite to have it become valid to outside observers? ask any student in the university and they will understand exactly what you mean. Matan, asking for a reasearch paper about this is a complitely ridiculoud proposal. any research papers about the first year run? furthermore, please refrain to comparing this to antisemitism.

(this unsigned comment was from user:69.138.189.71)

Interesting view that anti-semitism is bad, but it's OK to denigrate women ( especially clever women). Interesting too that the anon (no surprise there!) persists despite the numerous comments about the offensiveness of this behaviour. I wonder if the University appreciates that its computers are being used to ridicule and mock its female students? If this is OK, why not throw in a few anti-jewish or anti-black jokes too, and make that an another endearing tradition. jimfbleak 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

jimfbleak, you are seriously overstepping the line. Being complitely ignorant of a tradition of this university, which has been sourced in as many publications as any university tradition would (as much as any of the other ones on this article) you insist on not allowing it to be a part of the article. If you knew anything about this university, like Valley2city seems to, you would understand that these are JOKES, and only that. you can keep comparing it to anti-semitism or anything you want, but these are your opinions and they are frankly quite irrelevant. This tradition is a fact, it is sourced and exist whether you would like to include it in wikipedia or not. I think it is a section that would grow and become significant tot he article. it even coudl be its own article, where pro's and cons of the tradition could be protrayed, but you will not allow it. If there is a way to put you up for review as an editor, I would recommend that be done. you should stick to making editorial decitions that are informed, sourced, or otherwise objective, not purely your opinion.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Dear anonymous user. First, if you are genuinely interested in being part of this community, then create an account. It allows other members of the community to take you more seriously, and to communicate directly with you. Second, jimfbleak is not obusing his authority (he didn’t even do anything yet!). There are rules on what to do when editors disagree, and he is trying to enforce them. This specific talk section is meant to help us reach a consensus, and by adding the joke section back as an anonymus user, you are acting, or appering to act, in un-wikipedia-like behavior. Third, an opinion piece by one student, about the problems of creating a cohesive community out of 4 undergraduate colleges is not a “source” for establishing anything, let alone a “university tradition.” Fourth, the majority of the other traditions listed in the articles are in fact university tradition. These are traditions not because I or jimfbleak think they are, but because they are sourced, varifaible, and actually mean something to the university community. The university president, every year, lights-up the trees. A group of students, for over 100 years, write a musical and perform it during the spring. The marching band, before every organic chemistry exam, enters the library to distrupt the students (not really distrupting anymore, because this event is sanctioned by the university, as they provide security and seal-off a section for the band’s use). That is why these are traditions. And finnaly, I am sorry you don’t like the comparison to anti-semitism, but maybe the following will help you understand. On January 26, 2005, the Spec reported that “Racist Graffiti Found In Lerner.” Two years earlier, the Fed published a racist cartoon. Do these incidents mean that Columbia has a tradition of racism? I don’t think so. Do a few incidents of jokes at women mean that Columbia has a tradition of “Barnard jokes.” I believe the answer is no. I hope I was able to change your opinion. Sincerely, Matan 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear matan. I choose not to create an account, and as i see it there is nothing against that int he guidelines, when I want an account i'll make one, thank you for the suggestion. You obviously have attended columbia at some point. if you have, I am sure you know that Barnard Jokes exist and are something particular to columbia, something that to me fits very closely with the definition of a tradition. why not add the section and describe the tradition for what it is? it exists, however you may dislike it. On sourcing, I know the article is not about it, but it mentions it, giving it credibility, and also, thanks to the organic nature of contributions to wikipedia, now you know that the marching band references them in their orgo night skit. and also, enough with the racism comparisons, its at best a fallacy, and i believe that even you know that.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Then we disagree. You think it’s a tradition, I do not. You believe my comparison of “Barnard jokes” to racist incidents is a fallacy, I do not. Since I have tried to change your opinion without success, and you have tried to change mine, I doubt we can reach a consensus. I therefore invite other contributors to this article to voice their opinion. Sincerely, Matan 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have a watch on Columbia's article, as a proud alumnus and avid Wikier, and thought I'd weigh in when I saw this dispute in the most recent edit. It certainly doesn't seem that the general article on "Columbia University" need or should include a selection of the jokes plied about our fellow academians across Broadway--it's not that the jokes aren't heard in the Columbia environment, but that such a level of detail is entirely inappropriate to a general encyclopaedic article on Columbia. That being said, it might be said reasonably that a general level of good-natured condescension (if that mild oxymoron makes sense to people who didn't go here) exists at Columbia vis a vis Barnard: that's the sort of broad comment on university views about a major element of their community that does belong in a Wiki top-level article such as "Columbia University". Whether or not such condescension is felicitous or politically correct is irrelevant; this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for promoting moral growth. (If you'd like, I can dig up some sourcing for that general campus sentiment if such is desired.) As for the individual jokes in question, there seems to me nothing inappropriate with presenting an article on "List of Barnard Jokes," so long as they are sourced (Wiki is no one's personal jokebook). That's just reporting facts. I wouldn't make such an article, since it seems horribly trivial and a waste of time, but Wiki has articles on much more narrow subjects than that. If Mr. Anonymous wants to waste his time at it, moral objections should have no part in denying him an opportunity for the presentation of facts. Our editorship should be limited to the style in which it is presented, its veracity, and its placement in an appropriately narrow (rathe than general-interest) article. Citizen Sunshine 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I have been saying from the beginning, albeit less elloquently.160.39.168.58 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

dear Citizensh sunshine, given that you are an editor, and aparently the only one must be an editor to be taken seriously, please add the section, unless there are any other objective NPV objections.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

While I've voiced my opinion, I'd prefer to let somewhat more time lapse so more voices might be heard, or those already heard restate their ideas, if they wish, before inserting material which has hitherto been controversial. My recommendation for an appropriate sentence could read, "Although relations between Columbia and Barnard students are manifold and broadly cordial, many Barnard students feel a sense of benign condescension from their Columbia counterparts, who in turn express displeasure that Barnard students receive diplomas from Columbia." As a source, a through and well reported survey of the subject may be found at: Tess Brustein and Kira Goldenberg, "Barnard's Mixed Message," Columbia Daily Spectator, 20 April 2006, http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/04/20/News/Barnards.Mixed.Message-2027474.shtml. Beyond that, as I noted above, I have no interest in compiled reported jokes about Barnard; I have better uses of my time on Wiki.

Please excuse me; I neglected to sign the immediately preceding statement. Citizen Sunshine 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the section, without examples and with the proper sourcing. I believe it accurately represents the tradition and has nothing derrogatory, or even controversial there at this point. I have no objection to editings of the section, I actually think they would be good, so it becomes better written and more accurate.160.39.168.58 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnard Jokes, while infinitely amusing, hardly fulfill the requirements for a tradition. It should be removed, just like the Bad Poetry Contest should be. Jiggz84 06:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jiggz84, I would tend to disagree. One of the many things I and my ancestral Columbia attendees have been able to join on is our recollection of sometimes off-color joking about Barnard. While not as clearly a "tradition" like the Varsity Show so much as "traditional", it seems as though the Traditions section is the best place to put the information. I think 160.39.168.58's edit is well-written, concise, factual, and sourced, and should be kept. Citizen Sunshine 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. First, Mr. Anonymous, it is not very nice to insert that section back, while the discussion is clearly continuing and a consensus has not been reached. Second, Citizen Sunshine, I must point out again that this section is NOT sourced. The link is to an opinion piece that has nothing to do with jokes. And even if the topic of the opinion piece were jokes, it would still not be enough to establish a tradition. If I wrote an opinion piece that Columbia students have a tradition of standing on their hands, would that be a valid source? And to make the comparison even greater, what if my opinion wasn’t even about standing on my hands, but on financial aid, and my headline was “Columbia students stand on their hands”… would THAT be a source? It would not. This is not a tradition, it is not sourced, and even as currently written, it promotes attacks on women. Matan 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Matan, this is ridiculous. you bring up one ridiculous analogy after another. You should recognize that the sourcing is appropriate. its a tradition of a university, you are not going to find volumes of scholarly essays about it, you will see it mentioned in the university press as a sidenote and a reality. in the same way, you will see it appear in the scripts of school performances that poke fun at the schools traditions and inside jokes. the Joyce Kilmer Memorial Annual Bad Poetry Contest, the Vagina Monologues and the Take Back The Night traditions are not sourced at all. Yet we hear no complaint from you about them. You may not like this tradition, but it exists. if you want to add commentary to the section, you can. that that has a place in an encyclopedia, I am not sure.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Hello anonymous. First, please don’t respond to what I say as ridicules. It makes it harder for me to treat you with respect. Second, I actually think that all un-sourced sections of any article should be removed, including the sections on “Bad Poetry Contest” (a club activity, and hardly a University tradition), the Monolugues (I find it tradition, but it should be sourced) and “Take Back the Night” (even more of a tradition, but should also be sourced). But this discussion is about your jokes, not about those sections. You can’t justify one bad thing with the existance of another. Finally, despite my request that the jokes section be left out until a consensus is reached, you have re-inserted the text back into the acticle. I am not going to engage in an edit war. Instead, I have initiataed a formal dispute resolution and invited further requests for comments (RfC). Have a nice day. Matan 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Matan, the Barnard Jokes section should be removed. These such jokes are inappropriate; put simply, making fun of students from one college within the university is not a university tradition. Peace, Nathan C. Walker 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good Matan. and I am sorry about calling you comment ridiculous, but its harder to take YOU seriously after you compare this to anti-semitism twice, to racism and then made the analogy with "columbia standing on their hands." I only pointed out the fact that other sections were not sourced to highlight the hypocrisy of this argument and how your personal POV is factoring into your editorial decision. finally, your condescending tone with bolded enumerations is very much not appreciated. (this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

First of all, I would call the Kilmer Bad Poetry Contest a University tradition. Steeped in ritual, it is one of the longest-running events at Columbia and is mostly attended by non-Philos (though technically they all are members as they become lifetime members once they enter a meeting). Just as rituals involved in the Investiture of a Columbia President or the Yule Log lighting ceremony, or even the infamous swim test, this is one of the traditions people think of when they think "Columbia". As to the Barnard jokes, I understand if you have a personal ethical problem with it, but bashing Barnard is as traditional as, say, bashing Princeton. You can factuality dispute it all you want, but it still remains truth that Barnard gets a significant share of the abuse at the hands of the CUMB and the Varsity Show, as well as in frequent overheard conversation of laystudents in and around campus. Valley2city 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the "factual accuracy" banner should be removed. the facts are clear and sourced.160.39.168.58 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC response

As a Wikipedia administrator and a female Columbia University graduate (College, not Barnard) I have to weigh in about this. How about the old Engineering division jokes about how they lacked social skills and couldn't write a sentence unless it included an equation? Or about how the General Studies students were children from wealthy families who had been expelled from the nation's finest institutions? Or how the law school building looks like a toaster and the business school (viewed south from 120th Street) looks a bit like a toilet? I'll admit I was a sophomore when I told them, but they're still sophomoric, and this debate is a poor reflection on my alma mater. Cornell University is a featured article and you're quarreling over jokes? Get over it: move the jokes to MySpace. Aren't there enough Nobel Prize winners on the faculty and enough to say about the Pulitzer Prizes to take up your time? Durova^Charge! 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read over some of the disucssion, and it appears that there are citations that support that this is a sentiment at Columbia- and some small part of Columbia U culture. I would question putting it first, but other then that- it seems well sourced. Sethie 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Its first just for alphabetical order 160.39.168.58 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If this section is to be included another source that should be noted is the Stephen Sondheim Musical Merrily We Roll Along. One of the title character makes a joke about a Barnard girl at the end. I don't remember the exact line, but it would lend credence to the fact that there is a history of such jokes, regardless of whether this history could be considered a tradition.

Actually, the entire section of Columbia traditions should be removed from this article and put at Columbia University traditions. That's what we did over at the Cornell article, moving everything to Cornelliana; not long after, the article became a featured article. If you subscribe to post-hoc fallacy as I do (one year subscription — 53% off the cover price!), you'll see the wisdom in doing the same for Columbia. FWIW, I think "jokes about Barnard" really don't belong in this article or the traditions article I've proposed. There are light-hearted but ongoing jokes about a few programs at my alma mater, as there probably are at many or all colleges and universities, but it's certainly not in the article about the university, or the separate article about Cornell traditions, despite such playful mockery being a known and even documentable part of Cornell's undergraduate culture. It's just not that important or unique. The same is true here. If you can find a New York Times article talking about how ingrained the culture of mocking Barnard is, you might have a case. But having a couple sources that mock Barnard, one of which is just using a Barnard joke as a segue to discuss Barnard in general, and using that to stitch together the statement that it's part of Columbia tradition is not only not terribly convincing; it borders on original research. JDoorjam Talk 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple things. I've been absent from this discussion for a bit, mainly due to real-world concerns, but I've now read through the discussion. As I wrote supra, I disagree that Barnard jokes are an inappopriate or ineligible subject of a tradition. The implication by Durova above that because such jokes are sophomoric (a matter a taste, in any case, rather than fact, though I wouldn't disagree) they cannot be traditional is simply wrong. No doubt many traditions are downright moronic. The quality of a tradition has little to do with the fact of it. Durova's comparison to other objects of ridicule at the school is intriguing, but after some time perusing archives of the local periodicals--the source in which information about Columbia traditions would be found--I find sparse at best mentions of any broad class of joking aside from Barnard; certainly not the repeated references to the tradition over time necessary to claim a tradition. Contrarily, and as well discussed supra, quite a few articles refer explicitly to long-standing traditions or practice of Barnard jokes, while none do for Durova's other analogies. Now, I wouldn't say it's the most flattering tradition for Columbia, but I would reiterate we're an Encylopaedia, not a Columbia cheerleading committee, or a front promoting egalitarianism for women. The facts are on the ground, and sourced in the well-respected Columbia Spectator. All that being said, I agree with JDoorjam that an exhaustive rundown of Columbia's myriad traditions is inappopriate for the general-interest Columbia University page; it's too much of a niche subject and distracting in its length. So I'd agree to move the entire traditions section to a "Columbiana" page. Citizen Sunshine 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to move it as well160.39.168.58 00:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do not mind moving the tradition section somewhere else, I still object to including the jokes sections as part of the article. It is not a tradition, no matter where you put it. Matan 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If "tradition" in this case means simply long-standing, then I can attest that Barnard jokes were on campus as far back as the late 1980s, when I attended. I suspect they go even farther back -- witness the Barnard joke made by Woody Allen in "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask)" (1972). As for the allegations of a boy's club environment, I should note that Columbia women were some of the fondest employers of these jokes. There was at that time (I'm not sure about now) tension in the Columbia student body about the university's relationship to Barnard (to do with issues of housing and class space, and Columbia recently becoming co-ed), which I think fueled the jokes. It's certainly not a major tradition at Columbia, but it is a minor element of the culture.

Criticizing Barnard jokes is as much a "tradition" as making the jokes. Links added accordingly. Kaydee1970 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Kaydee1970

I read this entire discussion. This hardly seems like a "tradition" to me. 12.45.97.130 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. This IS NOT significant enough to be a tradition.I support removing this section.

This is without question a major part of Columbia life. I just graduated, and I can attest that at all four varsity shows I saw, every orgo night, even every football game (which are jokes in themselves), Barnard was ridiculed by the performers. In fact, last year's Varsity Show was one long Barnard joke, being about a Barnard student trying to take classes at Columbia. During orientation, the first thing I learned were Barnard jokes. Even Barnard's president mentioned Barnard jokes at their class day. Anyone who has attended Columbia is aware of this tradition!

Nobel count

The supporting external reference for the the claimed 2006 Nobel count of 81 is actually a columbia link dating from 2004, which lists 72 affiliated laureates. I checked the Columbia news archive and there seem to have been 2 affliated Nobel Prize winners in 2006 and 1 in 2005. That makes 75. Did Columbia recruit 6 Nobel Laureates in 2005-06 - and if so, is there supporting references for this? As it is, the 81 count is not supported/seems like original research. Bwithh 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A response: I think the number references wikipedia's own [3]. I poked around, and the people on the list appear to have the supposed Columbia connection. But I did not do a thorough search. Somebody who has time, please research this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.82.32 (talk • contribs)

That whole lists article is in bad shape and is unreliable. I've personally reverted slight OR inflations of the official Cambridge count (which ,is in fact, smaller than it would be if the university undertook a broader method of counting (yes, within the bounds of the criteria outlined below by yourself)) on this list in the past only for it to return. Other university counts also appear to be poorly referenced/inflated. Bwithh 01:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued: The question you ask reflects POV on your part (a Cambridge alum questioning a school's count that will clearly pass Cambridge in the very near future). On the other hand, the question addresses a very valid point: when is a person affiliated with a university? I think this is the origin of the problem. I have seen a number of counts that differ, depending on how shameless the POV proponent of the university is. For me, this issue is resolved by summing: a) people that earned degrees at named university; 2) people that did Nobel work at named university; 3) people who earned the prize while on the payroll of the institution; and/or 4) people who teach at named university and earned a prize. The here stated policy would be massively difficult to enforce (based on experience). I would give some time for Columbia rabid alums to retort, and if failing, delete the statement. I personally think on principle that it's in poor taste to include it in first paragraph anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.82.32 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the assumption of bad faith and the condescending attitude towards both me and "Columbia rabid alums". I actually came to this point because I was surprised by by Columbia apparently claiming a sudden lead over Chicago (which could be as easily argued by crystalballers to be "clearly passing Cambridge in the very near future" - and Chicago's referencing is sounder) on Wikipedia. My point was limited to the question of references and verifiability. Bwithh 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the assumption of bad faith on the part of Bwithh, Columbia alums and Cambridge alums. I retract the assertions, and will try to control my tendency to be less disciplined in my writing. Anyway, have a great holiday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.82.32 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, there seems to be a discrepency in the article. Early on, it claims to lead the world in nobel laurestes (without any sources), but in a later section it reverts to claiming second (81, behind Cambridge). I'm assuming that Columbia is in fact second, not first in the world?

The number 81 can be explained as follows. The list entitled "COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NOBEL LAUREATES,1906-2004"http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/nobel_laureates/index.html which was prepared in 2004 on the occasion of 250th celebration lists 72 laureates. This seems to be the only "official" comprehensive list posted on Columbia Home Page as of now. In 2005 Grubbs(Columbia PhD) won in chemistry. In 2006 Phelps(current professor) in economics,Pamk(current fellow,faculty to be) in literature,and Mather(former post doctoral fellow at Goddard Institute for Space Studies,a Columbia affiliated research institute) in physics won the awards.That makes 76. However,the list entitled "Columbia Nobels"http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/about/main/one/columbianobels.html in physics category posted on the Columbia Physics Department Home Page contains 5 people not listed on the above 2004 List.They are three EKA Lecturers and two visiting professors. If those 5 were added, it would make 81. It is the matter of difference in definition of which type of affiliation to be counted or not. Incidentally, University of Chicago Home Page counts such affiliations as visiting professor,lecturer,volunteer professor,research associate,and post doctoral candidate. In this sense 81 is legitimately comparable to 79 of Chicago. However,Cambridge Home Page does not give any information on the type of affiliation. If the number of laureates in physics alone were increased by 5 just applying different affiliation definition, what about five other categories? Isn't it reasonable to assume that the number may also increase accordingly? Depending on the outcome,Columbia may already be No.1 in the world! You need to research for the past 101 years,though. A frustrating situation is that Columbia Home Page does not have a dedicated web page with the list of all laureates like the one at The University of Chicago. To my knowledge there are inconsistent numbers like more than 70(College Page), 72(Columbia 250 Page),73(Prospective Student Page),in different sites without as of date and they are not updated since 2005. So long as the list clearly states a type of affiliation, there should be no room for confusion. U of Chicago Home Page is a good example. The Office of Public Affairs is not doing their job.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.82.202 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Seperate most of "Athletics" into its own article?

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

Merge/redirect

I've redirected Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research to Columbia University, in lieu of deletion, as I don't believe it passes WP:ORG and other guidelines for inclusion, and it was completely unsourced. I don't think there's much to say about it here, but please merge any info deemed relevant. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 08:58Z

Fidel Castro

Why isn't he mentioned as a notable alumni? I'm not saying he's one to be proud of but it's not for an encyclopedia to choose whether to include him or not, no? Not only did he come to the school, he was the pitcher for the baseball team. Just throwing this out there.

Is this a joke? Cjs2111 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's either a joke or someone giving undue credence to an urban legend. Castro has no connection to Columbia whatsoever. He has probably never even set foot on campus. Unless I'm mistaken Castro does not speak English, and it would be impossible for anyone who can't speak English to graduate from Columbia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.68 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Traditions?

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

Wikiproject Columbia University

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

Academics and Admissions

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

"Transit Access"?

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

It is on NYU's page... Maybe that should be taken down too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.193.232 (talk) 06:01, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

"Notable Columbians?"

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

I agree. It is much too long, and the same information can be obtained from the main article on "people associated". Ir anything, the first para. can stay, and the link to the other article takes care of the rest. Shoreranger 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Undergraduate Population

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

Traditions

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

Columbia Unbecoming

The Columbia Unbecoming section seems to me to be written completely from the film-makers' POV. Many of the sources are biased — Campus Watch is a right-wing group opposed to any criticism of Israel, legitimate or otherwise, and The New York Sun is known for its conservative ideology.

The only semblance of "balance" is a single sentence about Professor Massad's response to the University's report. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don`t see why you should think that, you're at liberty to add sources which do fit your own ideology. I find it odd that you discount sources not for their content but for their presumed politics. --Isolani 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two sides to the story and I think the article only describes one of them. I intend to contribute to this section to make it less POV, but in the meantime I added a "POV" tag. I thought it was appropriate to write on the Talk page why I had done so, especially since the box says "Please see the discussion on the talk page."

With respect to the sources, I think their politics are relevant because, in my experience, they are likely to trumpet any accusation of anti-Israel bias on campus. (Indeed, that sometimes seems to me to be Campus Watch's raison d'être.) If the majority of sources in this section were known for their anti-Israel politics, I would be equally concerned about POV. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scrap and re-write?

I'm not sure how many others agree with me, but the amount of filler, cruft, extraneous information, etc. on this article is boderline unbearable. Is there anyway we can scrap the article as it is now -- taking only the most pertinent information -- then rebuild the article? This is an encylopedia, and this article reads as if it were an admissions office leaflet. 76.102.129.22 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I welcome you to sign-up for an account (its free!) and work on a revised Columbia article on your test page. Then, invite people to comment on that page before making changes to the actual article. What do you say? Matan 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is massive. 104 KB is unacceptably long. I think it may also be a good idea to consider making some of the larger subsections into separate articles still with a summary and a {{main|Article}} from the remaining shell on the CU article. I invite you to continue this discussion on the WikiProject dedicated to Columbia University --Valley2city^₪‽ 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia university lion mascot.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)