Talk:University of Colorado Boulder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notable CU Students

Katie Hnida, football place kicker (now attends University of New Mexico) Not a notable person, should be removed from list --Gephart 15:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. She was all hype and no substance. However, she has her own page here, so I think we'll have a hard time making that argument unless that page is first deleted. I think it should be, but that probably means little. If you remove the link I will not object, but others probably will. Your call.Gator1 16:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. How can you justify removing reference or link to Hnida when a lengthy paragraph on Gamow's misconduct remains? The Barnett's era of athletic department misogyny, and the wider impact the excessive sports culture has on American universities is far more fiting for inclusion than a recent incident of individual misconduct. --Edivorce 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful campus?

Regarding the recent de-puffing: some of the puff can be substantiated:

1. The Campus as a Work of Art (ISBN 0275939677) ranks CU-Boulder #4 in the category of “most architecturally successful campuses in the country.”
2. American Institute of Architects calls the campus “one of America’s most significant works of architecture.”
3. American Universities Admission Program [1] ranks it #2 (tied) for “Most Beautiful Campus” [2].

Also, since Tuscan order merits an article, this article may as well somehow link to it (but probably without the previous “unique” qualifier). —Fleminra 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- the Tuscan order should definitely be mentioned, and those are some great stats -- you should throw those direct quotations in the article, methinks. JDoorjam 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Boulder, Colorado

Two sections seem more related to CU than Boulder from the Boulder article. They are Hate crimes at CU-Boulder and Riots and alcohol. Thoughts?

Ken

Definately two articles. I'm working on an expanded article for the U of C, but I don't have a lot of time right now. I think universities need to be kept separate from the towns they're located in, even if there is a lot of overlap. Kerowyn 09:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kerowyn, I think you misread the proposal (or I didn't insert the templates right). I'm proposing that two specific sections from the Boulder article be shortened or removed and put into the CU article -- so yes, definitely two separate articles -- but which one contains which content?

One is the issue of riots near CU. This should be in the Boulder article because it happened off-campus and because the response and issues surrounding it were more about the city than the university.

The other is the series of letters sent to student leaders during 2005, the vandalism of CU property, etc. The reason it should be in the city's article is that it was covered in city newspapers, etc. The reason it should be in the CU article is that these incidents happened mostly on-campus between students.

I explain that because I think (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you thought I intended to merge the articles entirely -- which isn't the intent. Ken 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be wrong to separate CU's riot issues from Boulder. The riots occur in Boulder. They implicate issues concerning Boulder's city government, police, and permanent residents. The resistance on the Boulder, CO pages to calling the riots what they really are is good evidence of why they need to be on the Boulder and not CU pages.

Brushing negative things about Boulder onto CU is a nice trick for editorialists but not for encyclopedists. Keep the riot material and also the race material on the Boulder pages!

Moving the race material is especially alarming. The BOulder boosters who edit these pages think they are liberals. But, as soon as a contentious race issue gets mentioned, they want to move it somewhere else even while they keep silly things about goats, prairie dogs and etc.

The purpose isn't to move content anyone would perceive as negative off the article. I agree there do seem to be a lot of people from Boulder editing the city's article, which is okay as long as they (including myself) are objective. To the complaint that I (and others) have acted in an effort to keep the article positive: I don't think we have. Arguably, the picture of Ward Churchill has nothing to do with the city itself, but no one took it out. Jon Benet was expanded. On the detailing of every bonfire on university hill -- for a single neighborhood that has a an ongoing problem with bonfires and riots, I think the 4 paragraphs dedicated to it are on the side of being too much, not to little. Los Angeles, in comparison, only passingly mentions the riots that have happened there, although those have entire articles.

Someone (you?) added personal anecdotal generalization about racism in Boulder, which is fine but sharing personal stories isn't really what wikipedia is for. So I added the two sections on the hate crimes at CU and the white flight issue at the bilingual schools. Ken 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The Hate crimes at CU section could be moved to the University article, but the riots article should be left here and perhaps copied into the University article. The paragraphs on the riots in the Boulder section could also be cut down a bit. Kerowyn 03:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---My reaction to this is that the stuff about riots and race is important to boulder. First, I know people who moved to Boulder who would not have if they had known about the riots. A truthful Wikipedia article would prevent mistakes like this. Second, as to race, Boulderites really do need to wake up to their race problems and maybe this article would help them to grapple with them. Wayne Laugesen's right that a lot of the alleged liberalism of Boulder also serves to exclude people of color. Sweeping this under the carpet or onto the CU pages would be a shame. I think these pages have been profiting from a real dialectic lately.

A good point. I'm going to add, though, that the riots occur mostly in the Hill neighborhood. It's not like the whole town goes up in flames every year. Kerowyn 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the explanation of why bonfires are dangerous could probably be trimmed down a bit. I think most people (except Wayne Laugesen) are aware that bonfires do pose a public safety hazard, and a detailed explanation of why probably isn't necessary. Bare in mind that the current text of the riots is something of a compromise, in-case you hadn't noticed.

For the CU Hate Crimes. I'd think we could keep a paragraph or two about race in Boulder that mentions the 2005 vandalism/death threats/assault and links to the CU article. Or if anyone wants to do enough research, it could be its own article mutually linked to. Not sure whether the series of events justifies its own article.

anon -- You had mentioned other studies of white flight in a community that allegedly prides itself on diversity. Any chance you could dig those up and expand on that? Right now that section rests basically on a Denver Post report and Laugesen's editorial. Certainly there are sociologists who have studied this. It's basically gentrification without ever having economic/cultural/racial diversity in the first place. (Not surprisingly, the city formed a committee on economic diversity a while ago.) Ken 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That might be better covered in the white flight article. --Kerowyn 08:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Done

As per our discussion, I've moved over the hate crimes at CU-Boulder to the CU article. I've kept the white flight discussion in the Boulder page, and have removed the merge templates. Ken 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Kerowyn 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Macky Auditorium

Article merged with UCB as per AfD discussion.  (aeropagitica)  21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For CU fans

I've created a new template for CU Buffs fans like myself; {{User CU fan}}, shown here;

CUThis user is a Colorado Buffaloes fan.

Enjoy, go Buffs! Editor19841 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely...

I live in Boulder, and I personally think that this article is both incomplete and, in a sense not NPOV, since there's so much more material on the athletics and controversial aspects of the school than on the academics...I know that those are notable, but the article doesn't even have much of any information on the academics of the school... 24.8.162.216Max J

• Agreed. WE don't need detailed court records or depositions of those involved. If no one objects in a week or so, I'm going to edit down the sex scandal section to the more salient points. --Kerowyn 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I object. If Max or others are committed to adding more material on the academics of the school, then that would certainly be relevant and would provide more balance. However, this is not the same as saying that the sections on the controversial aspects of the school should be reduced. Who is the "we" who don't need detailed information about the alleged sexual assaults? Certainly many prospective students -- particularly women -- and their parents, who are among those most likely to visit this page, would be likely to take an interest in the university's past treatment of issues of sexual violence and sexual harassment. It is potentially important information, it is accurate, and it is not readily available elsewhere. Perhaps a compromise would be to keep the "more salient points" on the CU page, with a link to a new page on the lawsuit specifically.

• • It's not like the media hasn't played up the assault every chance they get. The sexual assault contraversey is well-documented in other places. We don't need explicit detail on what was "alleged" to have occured. I would say another page is unnecessary for the same reasons that all this detail here is unecessary.--Kerowyn 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Accomplishments

These accomplishments seem very broad to be all attributed to the University of Colorado at Boulder. There needs to either be some editing or some references to these actual accomplishments. The item that bothers me particularly is the "Discovered how a human cancer gene functions." This seems very broad and most likely very exaggerated.

I added the {{Unreferenced}} to this section. Any item thus listed should have a reference and if it's truly notable, then it should easily have a reference. MECU≈talk 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo request

We need some good open-source photos to illustrate the architecture on campus, specifically Norlin Library and Macky Auditorium. If someone who lives in Boulder could snap a few shots for us and upload them to the Commons that would be great. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If I missed something important, please let me know. MECU≈talk 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Okay, the contraversey section is getting out of hand. It takes up a disproportional amount of room. A bulletpoint by bulletpoint listing of events on campus, regardless of their accuracy, tends to imply that the university is full of rampaging hooligans. Obviously the recruiting scandal and the Gamgow issue needs to be mentioned, but I think a total of 3-4 paragraphs ought to be plenty. Can I get some other opinions? --Kerowyn 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The controversies section is getting out of hand - I'm not close enough to CU to know what events are really notable and what events are not, but I do think this list is very long (and I'm not aware of any analogous list on another University's page). Baylor University has (or had, at least) a controversies and criticisms section, but it is devoted to controversial decisions made by the University's administration, not (for example) racist action taken by a small group of students. Personally, I would recommend creation of a Colorado Buffaloes Athletics (or similarly titled) article containing information about CU athletics in general, as such articles are becoming common (see Texas Longhorn Athletics, for example), and moving the athletics-related criticism there. CU athletics is -- as far as I can tell -- notable enough for its own article in general, and that would provide a good place to put much of the criticism currently on the main University’s page; CU athletics may be notable due to controversy, but I would say only a passing mention of recruiting scandals (with a link to the section in the athletics article about the scandals) is needed in the CU entry itself. --EdisonLBM 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. Athletics is a pretty big deal at CU, and in addition to the Division I teams, there are a number of club sports. --Kerowyn 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we create a new section on athletics. Please remove the athletic "controversies" and place them there. (unsigned comment)

I guess in the move, none of the controversies survived. The whitewashing of CU is complete (or has been for almost a year now). Is this info anywhere on wikipedia at all? I was trying to find some info, but couldn't find a single article that referenced it (except for Rick Reilly of course, he's a hippocrite). R. Baley 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the consensus has been that scandals that receive widespread media attention get their own page. For example: the Duke Lacrosse scandal has its own page, with a one-sentence mention of the incident and a link to the scandal's page. There's no real reason that the same couldn't be done with the CU scandal, but it would have to have a separate page, and it would have to be footnoted six ways from Sunday. It's a contentious issue, and without good citations, people would argue about it forever. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Academic Freedom

I inserted a section entitled "academic freedom." It deals with Ward Churchill, and the surrounding controversy. This issue has been widely reported as an issue of academic freedom, while the university's stance has been that it is a matter of discipline. In short, should the article take the university's stance? We are all well aware that before the university took action against Churchill, there were "concerns" voiced by the university about Churchill's opinions. Other universities include sections on academic freedom. I guess I fail to see why this description is a POV, as opposed to a real issue. Merely calling it "Ward Churchill" does not adequately sum up what this is about in my opinion . --tortdog 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But calling it "Academic Freedom" implies that there's a wider pattern. The section is really only about Ward Churchill. I have no objection to the section itself, I just think the title could be different. You said yourself that there is a difference of opinion on what this is really about (academic freedom v. academic integrity). Entitling the section Academic Freedom lends weight to that side of the debate.

Which universities have academic freedom sections? We can use those articles as a model for this one. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Titling it "academic freedom issues" is taking the side of Churchill's supporters, as his critics don't see this as an academic freedom issue at all. If there are some wider academic freedom issues that the Churchill thing could be mentioned next to, that would different, since it would be less applying the label directly to the Churchill firing. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be in a section titled "Ward Churchill controvery" or "Controversies" if the section covers other controversial things (the football party controversies for instance). — George ^[talk] 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I like "Controversies"; it doesn't lend weight to any one issue. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The other universities that address "Academic Freedom" are BYU, Catholic University and Tulane and Hunter College. In Tulane, the issue is buried under Katrina news. It's not real obvious. In Catholic University, it's a heading with one paragraph. Hunter College addresses it head on with a heading. And BYU has about 10% of it's article devoted to it. With BYU and Catholic University, the issues happened quite a while ago. While the controversy with Colorado is very recent. I guess what I'm wondering is why University of Colorado's claim that there is not an issue regarding academic freedom makes it so, and that having a heading dealing with academic freedom and Churchill should be dismissed (or left merely as Churchill). Might I suggest that we leave "academic freedom" in as a heading, and under the subject put in Colorado's policy, and include in the section the Churchill controversy. That would make it appear more in line with other universities that address the issue. --tortdog 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the chair of UCB's AAUP chapter has decried this decision as a trampling of academic freedom. Seems to me the fact that the issue is raised that it should be described as such. To ignore this is to take the University's line (since you are relying on the University's report, as opposed to the viewpoint of the AAUP and the accused). tortdog 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This has less to do with whether or not this is about academic freedom, and more to do with Wikipedia's policies. A title like "Academic Freedom", especially in this case, is highlighting one side's opinion, while a more neutral title like "Controversies" takes neither side. See WP:NPOV. — George ^[talk] 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

UCB has directly addressed this issue in a Statement on Academic Freedom. To ignore that UCB has a policy, and a position, is to ignore the facts. Whether Churchill's dismissal was a violation of that policy is the controversy. tortdog 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole section should likely be moved out of the Academics section entirely, as it delves into much more detail than just the academics involved in the event. The detailed description of who Ward Churchill is, why he is a contentious figure, which makes up the first two paragraphs, really has nothing to do with academic freedom in general. I would suggest moving this entire section to a root-level section of its own. — George ^[talk] 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but have those who believe Churchill's incident should NOT be covered in an "Academic freedom" section considered Googling "academic freedom" and Churchill and Colorado? Might the fact that UCB directly addressed these claims several times, and defended themselves not suggest to you that the issue of "Academic freedom" and Churchill are directly related? Whether Churchill rights of academic freedom is a question. But I find it hard to comprehend how it can be denied that they are linked. Even UCB's administration recognizes that (though it denies it was the reason for the dismissal). tortdog 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"though it denies it was the reason for the dismissal" – this is exactly the point. Categorizing it as academic freedom emphasizes one sides POV, while labelling it as a controvery doesn't emphasize either. Neutrality over truthiness. — George ^[talk] 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That logic doesn't follow, George. By excluding it from the "academic freedom" section, you are taking UCB's view. There is a section entitled "Academic freedom" for UCB. There is a professor who has been dismissed who claims UCB infringed his academic freedom. And there are about 75,000+ web pages that have hits on that issue. The AAUP chapter at UCB has ALSO claimed that UCB infringed his "academic freedom." So now please tell me why it's not neutral to: (i) disclose with citations those who claim Churchill's academic freedom was infringed and (ii) disclose UCB's response as to why he was dismissed? The BYU and Catholic University articles address this head on. And those incidents are OLD. Why should UCB be any different? tortdog 21:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely fine to mention in a few lines the Ward Churchill issue, provided that it is properly sourced, and it adequately covers both sides of the issue. However, the current three paragraph description goes into far too much detail not related to academic freedom to label it as academic freedom. If you have suggestions of how to neutrally reframe the existing text to focus on the academic freedom controversy, then I'm entirely open to discussing that. Note that the examples you cite don't flatly label their controversial sections as "academic freedom", but as controversies involving academic freedom. Flatly labelling the existing text as "academic freedom" is non-neutral, as it isn't about "academic freedom", it's about a controvery related to academic freedom. — George ^[talk] 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Rebuild

So, in light of the recent rating on the Wikiproject Universities scale, I'd like to propose a rebuild of the main article to bring it into line with some of the criteria for a good article. Namely, re-structuring the article. I feel that this would be a good place to start, since it would mainly require a rearrangement of material that's already here and would reveal weak spots. But I wanted to run it by y'all before I made major changes to the article. Thoughts? Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I went ahead with the rearrangement. I rearranged the material and changed some section headings, but it's all still there. If any content was deleted, it was by accident.

I think this does reveal some weaknesses of the article, namely people (both faculty and alumni), the recent history of the university, and club sports. Maybe we should focus on these areas for improvement. Any other areas of weakness? Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Mary Rippon Theatre

I think we can merge these articles, since the other article is just a fork of the content that's here. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and do that in a week or so. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

RAPs

There are many residential academic programs at the university and they do make CU unique. The page should include these programs as a large portion of the freshman class is involved in them. Darazzles 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic - Specifc Programs to be listed

There seems to be some disagreement over programs being listed under Academics. The latest contribution shows an program that is claimed to be unique. Yet there is no reference or cite to support this claim. I am requesting that any program that someone wishes to be listed there should have a minimum of one nationally respected reference to support its claim to be unique or special or especially important to the University. --MECU≈talk 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It claims to be a unique program on the Initiative's website. There really aren't any major references to the program outside of the university because it was only launched in 2004. It seems like we can't decide what to do with this section. It was originally part of the CU article, then it was given its own page. I put it back in here because there didn't seem to be enough to warrant an independant article. The same thing happened to the section on the Creative Writing Department. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it sounds like promotion and marketing and less factual. I think a source to support any programs inclusion should not be related to the University as well. --MECU≈talk 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The academic section of the page seems to be lacking in relevant information. This is, after all, a university and the academics should be the focal point of the artle. Maybe someone could mention the fact that several nobel laureates have been on staff. Maybe we could at least mention all of the different schools within the university. CU is an excellent university with wonderful academics and this page should reflect that.Janssena 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

I'm not really sure why the Engineering building is singled out for a picture in the Architecture section. If one walks around campus it isn't the best example of the Tuscan style that is characteristic of most buildings at CU. Actually, it's probably one of the worst examples because of the buildings liberal use of concrete and much more modern design. I just thought this was a strange picture to use for the architecture section which highlights the Tuscan style at CU....A CU Student 1/15/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.58.188 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, the engineering center has won awards for it's design, so having it is quite good. But I agree, there should be other images, such as the image request below to show other images. I'll get around to it probably during the spring football game when I'm on campus anyways which is April I think. --MECU≈talk 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please substantiate this? Personally, the engineering center is quite possible the most hideous building I've ever seen. The interior is mostly concrete with overhead pipes exposed everywhere, it's impossible to find your way around it unless you spend 24/7 in there (like me), and it barely even matches the CU theme (it's like they put red sandstone on a huge concrete slab as an afterthought). I have to agree with the first poster. --Tspike 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the building is not particularly attractive, nor is it a very good example of the Architecture at CU. The only thing that I think really speaks about the campus in the engineering center is the white chalk marks on the lower level where people have used the flagstone imbeded in the concrete for bouldering practice in their free time. Barbedwireincident 09:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear (bad me!): The external design of the engineering center has won award(s). The internal, I agree, is a joke, horrendous and bland. It was awarded the AIA Colorado 25-Year Award in 1994 (first year of award), see http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/1997/ml25.html . That's the only award I can find. I dunno if one would consider that award notable, since it seems Colorado-centric, but it is an award. If you can wait 2.5 weeks, I'm still planning to take pictures on campus during the CU football spring game so we'll have plenty of pictures then. If there's a specific building you want, lemme know. Hopefully it's a good weather day. I've got Sommers-Bausch Observatory on my list, as well as Mary Rippon Theatre, Macky, and Norlin Library. I'll take other pictures of other buildings as I go by them as well. Perhaps the UMC and Old Main too. --MECU≈talk 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the Engineering Building, whether it's pretty or not, seems very oddly and confusingly placed in the page. It's placed in the section about Macky Auditorium, and in the Architecture section of the webpage, the only other pictures are of buildings that there is information on. History of the building should be added (it's actually quite an interesting story) or this picture should be taken out. Britini28 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Honor Code

To Lentell, who added a large section on the CU Honor Code that he says he wrote:

I understand that you have a great deal of pride in your role with the CU Honor Code. I also understand that you want to let people know about it. No doubt, the work that it takes to devise and implement a university-wide initiative is no small feat and it should be recognized.

However, I am concerned with the amount of text covering the Honor Code. While I see that the Honor Code is personally important to you, I do not see how the worldwide audience of people that visit such an encyclopedia article will care about the topic. CU students and faculty may care about the code, but they are free to visit the CU web site for more information about it.

If you severely cut down the size of your recent addition, then a small mention of the code would be appropriate. As it stands, the Honor Code section is far too detailed for an encyclopedia entry. It is also too unspecific to stand (what students were "frustrated with the lack of academic integrity on campus"? All of them? Why does it matter that "information tables were set up around campus"?)

Finally, you need to cite the exact Honor Code web page where this text is from. Otherwise, you will be accused of plagiarism again. If you need help with citing external sources, let me know and I'll try to help. --Rookkey 04:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for abridging. C.f. honor code coverage for other institutions:

	paragraphs	words
University of Colorado at Boulder	6	468
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering	5	259
Brigham Young University	1	171
Princeton University	1	135
Haverford College	2	124
Connecticut College	2	122
Harvey Mudd College	3	85
Agnes Scott College	1	59
California Institute of Technology	1	59
College of William and Mary	2	38
Oxford College of Emory University	1	28
Oral Roberts University	1	21
Bryn Mawr College	½	12
Emory University	0	0
Georgetown University	0	0
Hampden-Sydney College	0	0

This table includes the first 15 (of 30) colleges listed in Honor code, and CU-Boulder.

—Fleminra 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading this discussion on September 27, 2007 I am confused as to where the six paragraph section previously discussed went. Did the original author remove it? Under what means was it decided that this was the appropriate response to the conflict? I am not taking sides on the issue, I would just like to know how this was changed from the cited 6 paragraphs made of 468 words to a section compiled of two or three sentences.Mrosenfeld 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

There wasn't very much mentioned of the Nobel Laureates, maybe just a very brief sentence and then that was it. This page should include them because they are such notable accomplishments. † Cez 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

A number of recent short and focused additions that try in good faith to follow wikipedia's guidelines, and that were suggested first on this page have been deleted because of perceived lack of "notability." However, the requirements for [notability]is that content is "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The additions generally meet this guideline (at least as much as other content on the page does, such as the Buff Bus). Further, the same guidelines on notability state that notability is not a sufficient reason for removing content: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." The last sentence is particularly clear, I think. Before removing content, we ask that contributors please follow the procedure of posting comments on this page, so that we have the chance to hear specific concerns and address them? Thanks very much. MicheleJackson 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources covering these important topics. I doubt there is much covering the honors program. Further, I seem to recall reading on this page (but can't find it above) that including every program at CU would make the page too long and include too much fluff. Further, that if there isn't anything special about these programs and CU, then they don't need to be covered. For example, is the honors program special to CU? Is there another school/college that has an honors program? I don't think the short "I think this should be included" above is enough a reason to include such topics, since again, there isn't anything important about them. While the Notability policy supports your argument, I am taking the view that each club/group should be able to have their own article about them to be included, but for ease for the reader, to just include that topic here. The Buff Bus is special to CU and has received press. In short, please provide reference for the included topics to support all the claims then and I won't have a problem with them. School newspaper doesn't count. MECU≈talk 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On the request for sources: The requirement for sources is for verifiability, not for notability. Therefore, there doesn't need to be "much." But we will double check.
On the issue of "including every program at CU": we completely agree. The choices of what to add here are chosen because they are important enough to give the reader an more full and accurate understanding of CU. We have taken all steps in good faith to avoid presenting "fluff."
On the issue of "special to CU": This is not a requirement of a university wikipedia entry. In fact, Wikiproject on Universities is explicitly advocating for a consistent structure and, presumably to some extent, content. The purpose of the content is not to be distinctive, but to be a thorough and accurate entry for that University.
On the issue of club/groups just being mentioned here, vs. having a description: I think you are right that the length here should be kept to a minimum. We have tried to keep all additions succinct. We'll review our entries and, in the meantime, if you have a suggestion for how we might make particular entries more succinct, please suggest that here. We welcome suggestions on how to improve the content. However, there is nothing that says a short description of groups is not appropriate. In fact, the Wikiproject on Universities suggests descriptions of academic programs and student activities/life.
On the issue of what kinds of sources are appropriate: This returns to notability, which is an inappropriate standard at this level. There is nothing in the Wikiproject on Universities that indicates that source materials must come from somewhere other than the university. Indeed, a number of university pages rely heavily on their factbooks.
The BuffBus doesn't support your argument: The BuffBus has not received media attention - the link in the article (1) is broken, (2) was to a lecture given at CU on biodeisal, not an article about the Bus, and, (3) is not distinctive to CU - biodiesel powers buses at several other universities, including Stony Brook, University of New Hampshire, University of Michigan, and University of Kansas.MicheleJackson 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the note I referred to before about not bloating the section: "To keep this section from getting too large, please do not add student groups or organizations unless they are especially notable, active or unique to Boulder" It was hidden in the top of the student section. I didn't add this and it has been there many, many months. Anyways, I've gone and added the unreferenced-section tag to the section and then marked nearly every sentence as needing a citation. Most of the new paragraphs read like advertisement pitches ("Anyone can join") that should be re-written as well to achieve a more NPOV tone. If the citations are not added by the end of the year (1+ months) I will remove the sections that are most egregious. MECU≈talk 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the issue of what student groups or organizations to include. Our group discussed the issue of whether the material already there should remain there, but we decided to leave them. (However, they were in favor of removing some of the current sections because, as students, they did not see them as best representing the campus.) I think it would be fair to discuss what criteria should be used to determine if something should stay in the section. Notable shouldn't be used ;) , but "active" and "unique" seem reasonable, as well as others - such as "contributing to CU-Boulder's character." I also think your comment about NPOV is fair and we'll review. However, I DON'T think it is fair to say that every sentence making a claim of fact should have a citation (nor is it good writing style). As an example - If this requirement would be applied consistently throughout the article, then every sentence in the History section would require a citation where, currently, there are zero. MicheleJackson (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm upholding the Wikipedia policy on this section of verifiability (aka, citation). If you wish to do so for other sections, then go ahead. But other stuff exists (or, in this case, exists in another unsatisfactory state) is not a valid justification for failure to include references. As for writing style, including citations on Wikipedia is the writing style. I can help format the references using the citation template if a link can be provided. But, they aren't hard to use: See Template:cite web. Any fact where there is a claim that something is "awesome" or "best" needs to have support. After all, Wikipedia can not claim such, another, independent, source must be used. I think upholding this standard to this section will reduce the advertisement-like writing style this section is adopting. Lastly, can you please provide what student group you were referring to when you said "our group..."? WP:NOTABLE is an established guideline, "active" and "unique" are not policies or guidelines. MECU≈talk 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of citation, the verifiability standard does not indicate the writing style that is to be followed for citation. Given that you are asking for a style that does not follow established style guides (such as APA, MLA, Chicago), you have the burden of proof to show a reasonable number of examples of wikipedia pages in which every single statement of fact has a direct citation immediately following. Otherwise, the burden of verifiability is met if there is a reference or a citation clearly that the user can refer to. In addition, it follows the standards for good writing that are used in published formats (books, articles, etc.) It is unreasonable and uncivil to suggest otherwise. In fact, if I am correctly reading your edits to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Buffaloes&oldid=139780216, you do not hold yourself to this same standard. You include several statements of fact for which you do not immediately provide a citation.
On the subject of NPOV, the word "awesome" appears no where in the material, and the word "best" appears only in the overview, which we did not edit. As I said prior, we are reviewing for NPOV. If you have a specific passage that you think continues to exhibit NPOV, it is your burden to identify that statement rather than making a blanket judgement.
On the subject of notability, we have already responded to this. Notability is not an established guideline for content, only for article topics. I referred to "active" and "unique" only because you invoked them above (see your previous posting, referencing the "no-bloat" statement). Please be consistent.
If you would more information about our real lives, I am using my real name. Feel free to contact me offline. If you're in Boulder, perhaps you could even meet us face-to-face.MicheleJackson 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I added citations for Hiking Club and Boulder Freeride. You mentioned above that the link to the Buff Bus article was broken. It worked for me, and was meant source the students involved in getting the Buff Bus program started, because someone kept changing the name. As for Notability, very few University groups at any University (excepting the athletics team) get external media attention, which does make it difficult to meet Notability guidelines. But I believe that this should not prevent us from including relevant material.

That said, I think we can do without the Program Council and the Herd sections, since these types of groups are common to most Universities.

Also, it is not necessary to request citations for every sentence. We don't want the footnotes section to be as long as the article. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

He's made his way onto this page again. How about a notable faculty list, with a link to Churchill's page? Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Resource links=

I found these sources which may be valuable for expanding this article. I am placing them here for my own reference and so that others who wish to expand the article can do so. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC) https://www.cusys.edu/downloads/answerbook.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/news/facts/pdf/JustTheFacts2007.pdf

Fair use rationale for Image:CU-1950s-historical.jpg

Image:CU-1950s-historical.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be resolved now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sports, clubs, and traditions

I think that the Fight Song should be included on the Sports page because that is an important tradition that the fans sing at sporting events. Wrights 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of a site like this if info is not added and kept? I place in a line about players going from this college into the NFL without making it to the NFL Hall Of Fame (with a reference!!!!) and it gets eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colethazor (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You should talk with the editor who removed your entry. For the record, I think it's fine information, but it should perhaps belong on Colorado Buffaloes football or Colorado Buffaloes rather than here. MECU≈talk 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's notable. First, the source doesn't clearly state the claim. It requires the reader to filter through the data and analyze it to come to a determination. Second, it doesn't establish a direct connection between playing for Colorado and a reduced chance of making it into the NFL Hall of Fame. Any connection is speculative at best and unencyclopedic. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Would anyone like to add information about the extremely controversial actions taken by the CU Police on April 20th this year? This seems like an event worthy of mentioning

http://www.colorado.edu/police/420_Photo_Album/index.htm Ix 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate page devoted to Ward Churchill, with a link to the CU page, would be more practical than mentioning him at random times in multiple sections. Etiejouard23 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact the police are complacent when it comes to 4/20 now would be more interesting: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/apr/20/cus-420-pot-smoke-out-draws-10000/ BrainMagMo (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Academic freedom and Churchill

This is a dispute about what to include, if anything, in the "Academic freedom" section regarding Ward Churchill. If we are unable to come to a meeting of the minds, we can move for mediation and/or arbitration. 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Tortdog's viewpoint

---

• The "Academic freedom" section should include relevant information connected with the position taken by Ward Churchill regarding 9/11, the public outcry of his position, UCB's initial criticism of his position, followed with UCB's investigation and hearing into Churchill's violation of UCB's policies NOT connected with academic freedom.

• It should further include Churchill's response to UCB's action as being a front for the desire to dismiss him unfairly, and the local UCB's chapter of AAUP's (monitors academic freedom) position that UCB had infringed on Churchill's academic freedom.

• Lastly, other universities (including BYU) have sections on academic freedom and allegations of violation of academic freedom are disclosed in the "Academic freedom" section, even though the instances in some cases are 10+ years old. So to leave this out of UCB's "Academic freedom" section would show bias. tortdog 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Personally, I'm afraid of the subheader in question becoming too excessive and filed with cruft. I agree that a brief explanation of Churchill's essay, the public and universities' responses, UCB's investigation, Churchill's response to the investigation, and AAUP's position are warranted and necessary if this article truly intends to have a NPOV. I think that perhaps the "Criticism" sub-header would best be titled "Controversy." Again, the content of the "Academic freedom" section should be sparse. It should properly cite all sources so readers can investigate the case(s) themselves. We mustn't let this portion of the article undermine other content in the article. This is my only concern.—oac old american century ^talk @ 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• No one is disputing the content. The problem is in the title. We simply cannot call the section "Academic Freedom" for the same reason we cannot call it "Faculty Plagiarism". Either way, it takes the side of an involved party. Titling it "Controversy" or something similar conveys just that; there exists a controversy over whether Churchill should or shouldn't be fired, and why. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, "Controversies" leaves room for other controversial events to be added, so it's more useful for the article as a whole.Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple I think. Anything having to actually deal with "Academic freedom" and not the details about Ward Churchill warrants inclusion in the "Academic freedom" section, and anything more related to the controversy surrounding Ward Churchill belongs in a "Controversies" section, or the article specific to the controvery. From your list, which includes "the position taken by Ward Churchill regarding 9/11, the public outcry of his position, UCB's initial criticism of his position, followed with UCB's investigation and hearing into Churchill's violation of UCB's policies NOT connected with academic freedom", the only thing that would warrant inclusion in the "Academic freedom" section is one to two sentences stating something like: "On July 24, 2007, the University of Colorado at Boulder fired controversial professor Ward Churchill, citing research misconduct, plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. Critics of the firing believe that Chuchill was actually fired for his controversial essay on 9/11, and argued that as such it constituted a violation of academic freedom at the university." (Note, I've included citation notes where we would need to include sources to back up each of these statements). — George ^[talk] 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that would be the kind of summary good in an academic freedom section. Maybe another sentence about how the university issued a statement on academic freedom in response. One of my problems with the longer summary is that you read several paragraphs on the 9/11 essay in light of the "Academic freedom issues" subheading, and only then get a single mention that research misconduct came out that just sort of implies that his critics wouldn't think his firing was an academic freedom issue. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm chiming back in to agree with User:George's suggestions on how to present the information in discussion.—oac old american century ^talk @ 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a standalone section since such codes are common to many universities and its apparent that this policy was a response to a specific controversy. Strip out the boilerplate from the university and neutrally describe the Churchill controversy as well as the football controversy in the history section. There is no need to label the sections with "controversy" either. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Campus Organizations

The campus organizations that are discussed aren't the most relevent organizations of campus. Other organizations such as The Herd play a very large part in campus life and should be discussed on the University of Colorado at Boulder page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Povenmir (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Other organizations that could be included are business groups, Amnesty International, the Greek system, and other academic clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pminer2218 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With that, the Buff Bus should be taken out of this section. The Buff Bus is not an organization, it is a means of transportation.

• One organization many community colleges, colleges, and universities have is a student-run and managed campus newspaper, published in both print and online editions. Does CU Boulder have either an university-funded on-campus newspaper or an independently-funded off-campus newspaper for student news and events? If so, wouldn't that be worth including in this article?

K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Campus Press →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Campus picture

Could someone familiar with the campus take or find a free photo of the Norlin Quadrangle? The Norlin Quadrangle Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so a photo would help with the Boulder County list of National Register sites. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Astronaut Section

Boulder is gaining quite the reputation as an astronaut school, I was thinking that maybe we should add a section dedicated to the astronauts alone... Similar to the Purdue page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.2.68 (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There already is an astronaut section on this page. Is that not satisfactory? --ToddBradley (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List of faculty detail pages

We need List of faculty at University of Colorado at Boulder (and at all large institutions). There are lots of faculty with their own pages that don't have a place in this article. (I was thinking about this visiting Randall C. O'Reilly just now, and wondering who fellow members of the cogsci faculty were). –SJ+ 23:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Smoke Out

Should information from this article be added to the article RE UC Boulder culture? VarunRajendran (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertising...

This page is so biased towards this university, it makes it sound like it's the greatest school on the planet. The alumni list is inaccurate, many people on it seem to have few ties to the university.

And public ivy? CU Boulder? The same school that has been at the top of party school and reefer-madness lists? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colowiki (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

the school's new name

We should rename the page because the entire University of Colorado system went through a change to rename, one we all know verbally different is that the "at" is removed from all school names, even Boulder.

University of Colorado Boulder

University of Colorado Denver

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

University of Colorado Colorado Springs

Although all the schools use the new names and brandings offcially, it does not reflect on some of their websites and documents. we should make the Wikis reflect the changes. They are all going through the branding change right now.

Source: https://www.cu.edu/brand/

Source: http://brand.colorado.edu/ — SituAsian (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

update: as of now, I am going to create the new Wiki page and redirect it to this current Wiki page, and do some edits that reflect the branding change. People can do anything they want to later AS LONG AS THE CHANGES REFLECT the 2011 CU Branding Standards. SituAsian (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to University of Colorado at Boulder. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

University of Colorado–Boulder → University of Colorado Boulder — Per [3], the university's name should not include dashes or anything else between "University of Colorado" and "Boulder". University of Colorado Boulder already exists, however, so I cannot complete the move myself. Thanks! Kyle_(talk) 02:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick Google search shows it is often referred to by the two names above, or perhaps even more frequently, University of Colorado at Boulder. We should use the WP:COMMONNAME and not necessarily the official name, though I am not sure what is most common. We should also consider consistency with other university names like University of Wisconsin–Madison. –CWenger (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Having lived in Boulder for 19 years I can tell you the most common name would be simply CU, though the most common longform would be University of Colorado at Boulder. As discussed on the page I linked to, they are working on removing the at from the name, however, so it seems right to comply with that. I would support either University of Colorado Boulder as the University's documentation shows or University of Colorado at Boulder as that is the common name. I do not think the dash should be kept simply because other university names on wikipedia use it. If the University explicitly states there should be no dash, there should be no dash. On top of that the dash has never been used in common description of CU, so I do not see any strong reason to keep it. Kyle_(talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer University of Colorado at Boulder due to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the previous name of the article anyway, so like I said I'd be fine with that. Kyle_(talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seems kind of strange to omit party school status

I know Colorado residents are very sensitive about the fact that Boulder is a notorious party school. However, as it topped the Playboy list as recently as 2011 and also ranked No. 3 on the Newsweek list, it seems strange to omit that fact from this article.--Coolcaesar (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As long as the facts are documented by well-known sources such as Playboy and Newsweek, they should be included. Plazak (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

University of Colorado at Boulder → University of Colorado Boulder – It's been two years since the last requested move to the official name of the University. Over these last two years, the University has taken large strides in changing the public's opinion of the University's name, removing the "at" to the more succinct "University of Colorado Boulder". The majority of websites have been updated to the new name and older sites are being continually updated as well. Nearly all print publications created today utilize the new naming convention.

As previously stated, the official name, as stated on both the University's brand site (http://brand.colorado.edu/) as well as the system wide branding site (https://www.cusys.edu/branding/), is the "University of Colorado Boulder". While I'll agree that plenty of individuals still call the university by its old name (including the "at"), a quick glance through google news shows *many* different variants in use today (with a dash, with a comma, etc). In my opinion, the reason this move was rejected previously (WP:COMMONNAME) is no longer valid. I have seen over the last several years since the new name was established more and more people correctly calling the University by its official name. Finally, using search analytics, I can validate that more people land on our website by searching for the University without "at" than with.

Personally, I believe the fact that this wikipedia article is misnamed is a big reason as to why people still incorrectly use "at Boulder" when referring to the University - primarily because google utilizes the wikipedia article's title in it's 'callout' when searching for the University. I, along with many others within the University would greatly appreciate this page being moved to the correct name. Full Disclosure: I'm a staff member of University Communications, the department on campus which manages the brand. Mtuckercu (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is in fact the official name now, and that's reason enough to move it. The reason people still incorrectly use "at Boulder" is more likely just because that used to be the name of the university for many years; no need to trump up some extra importance for wikipedia here. siafu (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support on the basis of the name used by several external bodies; the Association of American Universities, the NCAA (they use a comma but not "at"), the Princeton Review (they use two dashes but not "at"), the Times university rankings, and the Colorado Department of Higher Education. Green Giant (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I suppose if a university of higher education wishes to trumpet their inability to construct a grammatically correct name, we should let them. Powers ^T 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"CU" hillside letters

Are there any photos available for the the "CU" hillside letters for this school? See also List of Hillside Letters for more details. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, as there aren't any. There were some put onto one of the flatirons as grafiti, but they were removed and eventually (10 years) dissapeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

School Colors

The official school colorado are Silver and Gold. Black is not an official color. Please see [4] --MECU≈talk 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, have the official school colors changed? On the university homepage, the latest official colors are vegas gold, black, dark gray, and light gray. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the post you are responding to is from 8 years ago, it's entirely possible that they have changed since then. However, I would say that the university website is definitely a more reliable source than cubuffs.com. siafu (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

CU on the 3rd flatiron

FYI: The CU was painted over on the first Earth Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.178.33 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Packer statue?

See Alferd_Packer#Recent_investigations. There is a claim there that there is a statue to Alferd Packer at U.C. Boulder. Is this true? --Slashme (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen such a statue and doubt one exists. I think I would've heard about it. --ToddBradley (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a bust of A.P. in the UMC right next to Baby Doe Coffee. It's been there as long as I can remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8001:3747:BD5D:2F9:1552:677 (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

CU Honors Program

The honor's program at CU warrents special mention. The program hosted the first national convention and has attended conventions on a regular basis. The entirely honors student dorm opening fall 2008 will be a national leader in living-learning communities. The dorm will feature classrooms, multiple study lounges, and in dorm academic mentoring among many things. this could be added under a subheading of RAP's.

Ward Churchill fired.

Xenophrenic -- per my just-prior edit comment:

"Wow Xenophrenic, you're really doing some POV-pushing. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation#Lawsuit_by_Churchill before making this edit again."

1) By what stretch of the imagination does your edit comment "corrected" describe your undo? What happened to the "D" of wp:brd?

2) Why did you fail to explain this, as a contested edit, on this talk page as you've been asked so many times before?

3) How did you manage to turn a court case that Churchill lost ("vacated the jury award" and "[denial of] Churchill's request to order reinstatement at CU" that is sustained on appeal and not granted not granted cert at SCOTUS) into a "was wrongly fired"? How is this not a WP:POV violation? Deicas (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Added wording per the Wikipedia article link you just added and the cited reliable source you mistakenly deleted. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic -- I don't understand how you can assert "not disputed on the talk page, and it is supported by the cited source as well as the wiki-linked article" given my comments here and your meager response. Would you please respond to my questions/comments linked above? On what basis do you believe that a single link from 2007 can meet the criteria of due weight and NPOV for a matter that was not resolved until a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari by SCOTUS in 2013? How are your ill-substantiated efforts to include "unfairly""wrongly" not POV-pushing?

Deicas (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deicas. You must have me confused with someone else. I didn't add "unfairly" to the article. Now if you'll check the reliable sources you deleted from our article, you'll see that the jury did indeed find that Churchill was wrongly fired. Would you prefer a CNN source instead? Or maybe FOX? As for the subsequent matters you raise about what happened with other matters, like trying to get reinstated, etc., I didn't add that to this article. Are you suggesting we should? I don't think so, as it is already covered in the other article, and would indeed be undue here. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic --

Opps, above I wrote "unfairly", above, when I should have written "wrongly". Sorry.

Please stop changing section headings on this talk page. It's disruptive.

Please address my unanswered questions above. E.g. 'How did you manage to turn a court case that Churchill lost ... "was wrongly fired"' before you start to opine on other topics herein; it's disruptive.

And stop lying in your edit reasons: "... deleted w/o explanation".

Deicas (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...you're really doing some POV-pushing ... you fail to explain this ... your meager response ... your ill-substantiated efforts ... It's disruptive ... address my unanswered questions ... it's disruptive ... stop lying ...

Reliable sources say he was wrongly fired. I added that brief content to our article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)