Talk:University of Pennsylvania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Straw poll on how Penn's founding date should be presented

Vote for as many as you think fit.

The body of the article should say Penn was founded in 1740, no qualification. People can read the history section for themselves.

1. 1740. User:Etumretinw
2. I have never seen this 1749 date before Wikipedia. Com'n guys, just use the 1740. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.241.154 (talk • contribs)

The body of the article should say Penn was founded in 1740, with an explanatory footnote.

1. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Bindingtheory 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC) i think the footnote is a good compromise to ease tensions and stop the current edit/reversion war.
3. btm _talk 06:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The body of the article should say Penn was founded in 1749

The body of the article should give both dates, "Penn was founded in 1740 or 1749"

Penn's founding date should be discussed in detail within the body of the article (not relegated to a footnote)

1. mbecker 18:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Septentrionalis 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
3. maxsht9 23:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
4. 1740 is a date invented 159 years after the fact. The correct date is 1749, which Penn has considered correct for most of its history. dcandeto 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Dpbsmith and the anonymous IP user should each spend the rest of their lives reverting each others one number edits, five times a day, over a matter that is entirely one of interpretation and therefore which can never be definitively solved by anybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amherst5282 (talk • contribs)

"member of the "Big Four" of the Ivy League."

"Big three" is a common phrase referring to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

I seriously question the reality of any common usage of "Big Four" to mean Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Penn.

It is not listed under any of the many meanings in our dab page on Big Four.

Google Books search on "Ivy League" "Big Four" brings up five hits, none relevant:

• ...A reference to "Ultimate Bet," an online poker site, having "the best interface of the Big Four" (such sites)
• ...Alumni nostalgia for Cleveland's "big four" (football players... a reference to Cleveland Indians pitchers?)
• ...A 1933 prediction that Dartmouth would be added to Harvard, Yale and Princeton...
• ...A reference to a "big four" group of southern schools...
• ...A reference to Leland Stanford as being one of the "big four" who built the Central Pacific

If anyone wants to reinsert this, I'd like to see good evidence that the phrase "Big Four" is in genuine, widespread use to mean "Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Penn."

Significantly, "HYPP" is not even one of the very dubious initialisms claimed to be in use in College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the Big Four supposed to refer to? I've been at Penn for 15 years and never heard the term before in relation to a group of schools. I've been reading through my copies of "Fight On, Pennsylvania: A Century of Red and Blue Football," and "Pride of the Palestra: 90 years of Pennsylvania Basketball," and although I learned quite a bit in the process, I can't find a reference to a "big four" in either of them. (although Penn is certainly a member of the Big Five ) A quick google search brings back groups of schools known as the Big Four, but the list isn't consistent:

• Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn [2]
• Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Trinity [3]
• Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Union College [4]
• Penn, Yale, Princeon, Brown [5]

and all of them really seem to be trying to associate themselves with the Big Three (not unlike referring to various people as the "Fifth Beatle")

At the very least, a reference to the "big four" certainly doesn't belong in the intro to the article. If you can find some more authoritative references, list them here and maybe it can be added to the history section, or to the Ivy League article. But please don't add it back to the Penn article without more discussion in Talk first. -Bindingtheory 01:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Concurring with Bindingtheory, when I look at the references cited:

[6] refers to basketball, and does mention "games at the Ivy league's big four: Penn, Brown, Princeton, and Yale." I can't tell whether this is supposed to apply to athletics in general, or whether it is a comment on the current competitive position in basketball.

[7] is a forum and as such not considered a reliable source. The words "big four" don't appear on the page. I don't intend to read several hundred messages in search of them.

[8] is interesting and refers to an apocryphal story that attributes the origin of the phrase Ivy League to a supposed "1890s alliance among Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Penn known as the 'IV league,' after the Roman numeral four."

[9] is just a reference to U. S. News rankings, with no indication that the schools that currently happen to occupy the top four positions are known as the "big four" or form any kind of group.

None of these justifies a statement in the lead paragraph that Penn is a member of something called the "Big Four." I can't find any other reference besides the basketball story about a "Big Four" consisting of Penn, Brown, Princeton, and Yale.

The "IV League" story says nothing about any group of schools being called the "Big Four." It refers to a group of schools being called, not the "Big Four," but the "IV League," and not as being called that now, but in the 1890s. And, of course, apocryphal means nobody's been able to find any evidence of its being true. I think this story might be appropriate to mention in the Ivy League article as a trivia point.

Never mind, it already is, and "the supposed 'IV League' was formed over a century ago and consisted of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and a 4th school that varies depending on who is telling the story," with references that variously identify the fourth as Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Penn! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, poor Brown. JDoorjam Talk 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You know it's funny that you mention it like that. I started a topic over on Talk:Ivy League about how the league started and about the curious fact that Brown did not take part in the original proposal for the Ivy League. I'll bet that these two things are somehow related. btm _talk 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of this supposed Big Four, for what it's worth. And I would expect to have heard something like this at some point as an Ivy alum. In any case, it certainly can't be that widespread. That IV League story is pretty infamous too; I expect many Ivy leaguers learn of it and its subsequent debunking by a number of sources, including Cecil in the Straight Dope. At Cornell, the version is of course, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Cornell (although not with the IV League name necessarily). Uncle Ezra got it wrong for quite a while. --C S (Talk) 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly on the face of it, as "IV League" would be pronounced "Four League," not "Ivy League." The true story, of course, is that the nursing schools had an unofficial softball league, and, well, the rest is history...

I was thinking that it might be amusing to try to write a paragraph with the opening sentence "By numerous criteria, Penn ranks fourth," and I think such a statement could be supported with only a wee bit of arbitrary selection and creative jiggering—but I suspect such an effort would not be well received. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni-Why Choose Short Term Dropouts?

It would seem to me that with so many accomplished Penn graduates, that the lead paragraph should not concentrate on dropouts such as President Harrison, Warren Buffet or Candace Bergen(a flunk out). It would be the same as Princeton empahsizing John F. Kennedy or Stanford highlighting John McEnroe. While the defintion of alumnus of a university in Webster's dictionary clearly includes former students as well as graduates, it seems to me that the former student should have attended the place for some significant time. Harrison's official White House biography does not even mention Penn nor does Candace Bergens' Internet Movie Directory biography. I made the edit and then reversed it, and leave it ot others to decide what is informative and meaningful.

There are a couple of neutral ways to do this. Picking and choosing notable alums according to personal judgement isn't one of them. Here are two ways that are:

a) say that the criteria for being on the list is to be a) notable, and b) an alumnus.

b) Another way—one which I'd be very happy with if there were consensus—would be this: restrict the list to include only alumni for whom there was a verifiable source citation saying that the person had credited Penn with helping them to achieve the accomplishment for which they were notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Big Four, again

I just removed:

It is a "Big Four" member of the Ivy League[10].

inserted by 141.158.251.116 with the edit comment

(I just mean they are one of the top four ivies as ssen by the us news)

First, even if it were true--I honestly don't know whether it is--that U. S. News consistently ranks Penn fourth among the members of the Ivy League, that would not justify coining the neologism "big four." To use the phrase "big four" I'd like to see some solid evidence that this phrase is used idiomatically in this way.

Second, if this were going to be mentioned at all it should be in "Rankings," not in the lead paragraph. To say it's in the Ivy League means something. Having said that Penn is in the Ivy League, to say that among the Ivies, U. S. News ranks it not near the top and not near the bottom but somewhere in the middle is... hardly worth mentioning at all.

Third, the Big Three have—or at the very least had in the recent past—a social class dimension that is not shared by their close rivals. IMHO ugly, but true. This was expressed very plainly in a 1963 book

It is, above all, the national social prestige of the Big Three which is competition with the purely local social prestige of the University [of Pennsylvania]. Upper-class boys from all over the country, including Philadelphia, go to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Only from Philadelphia do upper-class boys go in any significant numbers to Penn. This is of course a universal national phenomenon. The pattern of upper-class male college preference, as deduced from a counting of noses in the various Social Registers, can be summed up as "The Big Three and a Local Favorite." That is, every city sends or has sent its Socially Registered sons to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, in some preferred order, and to one local institution. This order varies. New York sets the pattern with Yale first, Harvard second, Princeton third, then Columbia. St. Louis and Baltimore are Princeton towns. Most other cities (Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinatti) are Yale towns. Only Boston, and occasionally Washington, are Harvard towns.

Coeducation?

What year were women first admitted as students? (Alphaboi867 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

"Big Four" note

Regardless of magazine rankings (1) Harvard, 1) Princeton, 2)Yale and 3) Penn), it has always been Harvard vs. Yale and Princeton vs. Penn. When was the last time you heard otherwise. Everyone knows these universities are older, more prestigious and have better architecture. Name a famous person from Penn, Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Now try to name a famous person from Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, or Cornell.

Oh, please. Compare the list of Columbia University people to the list of University of Pennsylvania people. Penn hardly dominates the comparison; in fact, Columbia's list is substantially stronger. (Note, for example, Columbia's eighty-one Nobel laureates vs. Penn's twenty-two [Both figures as of late 2006].) Columbia's campus is also more architecturally significant than Penn's. I'm not trying to say that Penn's alumni and architecture are insignificant; on the contrary, Penn is a great university with much to be proud of. Its claim to greatness is significantly stronger when supported by accurate accounts of its own accomplishments than by groundless swipes at those of its rivals.

• If "everyone knows" this, it should be easy to find some reputable book or magazine article which says this, in so many words. Find it and cite it. I see good evidence for separating Harvard, Yale and Princeton out, but no evidence that Penn is commonly bracketed with them. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted Philadelphia planner, Ed Bacon, graduate of Cornell University. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are scores of familiar names affiliated with any Ivy League university... that wasn't what I meant. The problem with the challenge of "naming them" is that institutional affiliations are not particularly memorable. Offhand, I can think of Harold Urey from Columbia, Carl Sagan from Cornell, and let me, see, didn't Barbara McClintock, whose picture is on a postage stamp I like to use, work there... Dartmouth... mostly literary types I think, and I mostly know scientists, so can't think of one...

Here are just two not including anything from Penn, Harvard, Yale or Princeton's archives. [11] [12] Oh, Yes I am aware that Ed Bacon went to Cornell but we must also note that he was rejected from Penn and Yale (he did not apply to Harvard) and he is not famous by a long shot.

The question is: is there evidence that, in the popular mind, there is a well-known stratification of colleges in which Harvard is grouped with Yale and Princeton is grouped, not with Harvard and Yale, but with Penn? That's what's being suggested. I've never heard of this and my casual efforts of checking have turned up nothing of the sort.

Sure, there are sporadic Google hits on occasional use of the term "big four," in which three of the named schools are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and the fourth school varies. For example, this references [13] says the Big Four were Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Union College (in Schenectady). In the Daily Princetonian we learn that the "big four"—in squash—are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Trinity. Our article gives citations for a mythical origin of the phrase as a supposed "IV League," consisting of "Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and a 4th school that varies depending on who is telling the story," cited examples including Princeton, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Penn.

A telling comment is this one by Sports Illustrated's Frank Deford: Wait, a Big Four in golf? when, recent references to Woods, Singh, Els and Mickelson as a "big four" writes:

I don't think there's ever before been a Big Four, anywhere. Big Threes. Yes. Big Threes are traditional -- going all the way back to the 19th century when Yale, Princeton and Harvard were certified the Big Three of college football. Golf itself had a genuine titled Big Three: Palmer, Nicklaus and Player.

The bottom line is, I've found a source citation—Frank Deford, above—saying in so many words not only that Yale, Princeton and Harvard were the Big Three, but that as far as he knows there's never been a Big Four, anywhere. That I've never heard of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn being the "Big Four" means nothing. That Frank Deford has never heard of such a thing says a lot. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

--- Never had Lafayette defeated one of college football's Big Four -- Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton -- by such a margin.

"The contest is the greatest achievement of Lafayette in gridiron annals," the Easton newspaper gushed. [14]

Penn v. UPenn

While many may refer to the University of Pennsylvania as "UPenn," this is incorrect. There is one, and only one, moniker and that is "Penn." And yes, I understand that the website is www.upenn.edu, but that says nothing about what the correct nickname for the University is. It is Penn, and nothing else User:stanley011

• OK, but could we have a source citation for that? Where, exactly, did you get your information? I remember Googling around on the Penn website trying to find any kind of branding guide or logo directives and came up dry. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• P. S. Given that both "upenn.edu" and "penn.edu" are registered to the University of Pennsylvania--same identical "registrant" and "administrative contact"--if Penn cares strongly about it, what is your theory as to why they used the "incorrect" nickname for their website and all upenn email addresses, when they could just as easily have used the "correct" one? Why advertise a misnomer every time anyone at Penn sends an email? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It think it's the LACK of official usage, other than internet URLs (which cannot be considered to be an accurate representation of the official marketing practice. Examining the official style guide reflects all "Penn" references, and only references "upenn" in the URL. If you look at other universities (most of which are actually state schools) e.g. http://www.umich.edu, the "U" simply signifies "University of". Certainly the University of Michigan is not colloquially called U-Mich, is it? (Wikipedia says it's U.M. or U. of M.) Therefore, due to the abundance of usage of the term "Penn," and a total lack of independent documentation for "UPenn," it is logical and reasonable to conclude that the correct term is "Penn." Documentation of "UPenn" even in unoffical circles, would be sufficient to suggest it as an alternative. - CobaltBlueTony 21:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard U-Mich before. I suspect most people not in Michigan would say that instead of "U.M." or "U. of M." (maybe even those in Michigan?). I'm certain I've heard some of their alumni say U-Mich, but that might be some kind of neologism, I suppose. However, it was interesting making Google searches such as [15], which suggest to me that "umich", "u-mich", etc. is used in several different contexts in a pervasive manner. I don't believe that "umich" is being used there as just an abbreviation, although that is a possibility. Lastly, there are blog entries such as [16] from someone in Michigan. Presumably U-M, etc. would be a shorter abbreviation. --C S (Talk) 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my documentation: http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/43f433d839822?in_archive=1 user:Stanley011 Actually, I was wrong in my original post. "U of P" is also a correct nickname. But UPenn isn't.

Interesting, relevant... but still regrettably vague as to the "directives set forth in countless University manuals and procedures." It would be nice to have a specific example.

Nor does it answer the very interesting questions raised by the sentence "At the time, the University had not developed Penn as its official name. Variants like the U of P and Pennsylvania floated around. Today, it's Penn without question." Just when, how, and why did the University "develop Penn as its official name?" And how was it known for the couple-of-centuries-plus before then?

I think a flat "UPenn is incorrect" is too strong, if said without qualificatioin. Once we've put the story together, the sentence should say (or reference a footnote that says) something like "UPenn, perpetuated by the Universities choice of domain name, but deprecated by official directive thus-and-such since thus-and-such date...." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the the University of Pennsylvania's official name stated by the university itself [17]. It includes only "Penn" and "University of Pennsylvania." The whole "UPenn" thing is quite ridiculous. In fact, we do not refer to the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge as "UOxford" or "UCambridge." How can John not find the term Penn. It is practically on every University of Pennsylvania webpage.

Also, I provided numerous sources depicting the "Big Four" (Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton). I am not puting Penn before Harvard because I attend Penn. That is just the way the "Big Four" is written. If you do not feel comfortable with the "Big Four" I am fine with that. We do not have to include it. One more thing. I don't mean to be rude but how can you not know that Penn and Princeton have always been rivals?

Stop the presses: here's an explanation of the entire thing, and it looks like it's got something for everybody. The story mentions that, yes, Penn would like to go to only using "Penn", but that they started with "UPenn" way back in the day and now can't shake it. But they also mention that it's increasingly becoming the norm among students at the University of Pennsylvania to refer to the place as UPenn, and that various departments now have "UPenn" across the top of their web pages, implying at least some level of buy-in among the University administration. So I'd say, if it wasn't a nickname before, it's a nickname now. And million google hits seem to agree. Granted, a lot of them are hitting upenn.edu, but, in general, it seems safe to say that the abhored moniker seems to have stuck, regardless of the will of the institution, and should therefore most definitely be included here. JDoorjam Talk 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what the article states. It used upenn for its internet adress and email system to prevent confusion. It never adopted the acronym. Those who used the acronym on a webpage were new to the university and as of two months ago no longer work for the institution.

It's obviously a complicated story and we should try to piece it together and get it right. I just don't think it's good enough to pontificate that "UPenn is incorrect." Obviously Penn is used by the University itself, as the article has long said. That doesn't mean UPenn is incorrect. As I said before, the Daily Pennsylvanian has got a lot of the story. What's missing is:

• anything specific about when and how Penn acquired some kind of official status; obviously it did not have that status at the time the domain was named (as the story in fact states). So "Penn" is a relatively young official nickname for a relatively old institution;
• just what is meant by saying that Penn is "correct" or "official." Did the branding strategy come from the athletic department? From the President's office? where?
• Anything that says in so many words that UPenn is deprecated. Maybe 90% of the spelling and usage arguments I've had in my life have concluded by consulting a dictionary and finding to everyone's dissatisfaction that both of the disputed alternatives are there, with nothing so clear as a "one is right, the other is wrong" distinction. The Daily Pennsylvanian story seems to fudge this point. It says "All of this is contrary to the directives set forth in countless University manuals and procedures. There are very well-defined conventions for how to refer to the school, none of which permit the use of the ill-begotten 'UPenn.'" There's a big difference between a document that says "Use Penn," one that says "Only Penn should be used," and one that says "'Do not use UPenn.

It's clear that Jeff Shafer (in an opinion piece, not a news article), says "do not use UPenn." But does Amy Gutmann say that? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P. S. OK, I've sent emails to Jeff Shafer, writer of the Daily Pennsylvania article, asking for further information. Taking him at his word, "From now on, I'll type penn.edu. And you should too," I tried jshafer@wharton.penn.edu just to see what would happen, and of course it bounced with the error message "Sorry, I couldn't find any host named wharton.penn.edu." One sent to jshafer@wharton.upenn.edu did not bounce. I'm also trying Nicholas Constan, a faculty source he mentions in his article, and the Office of the President. Even if I get replies, they could not, of course, be used as sources for the article but maybe one of them will know more details. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Penn" "U of P" and "Pennsylvania" are deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the University--"Pennsylvania" is stated in the official song of the University and "U of P" is ubiquitous. "UPenn" was only used after the computing glitch--it has no foundation in the history and tradition of the University. People, please don't be afraid to use plain, simple language--this fear is one of the major problems in our society. "UPenn is incorrect" is the simplest construction and is entirely accurate. The real debate we should be having is whether or not to include "UPenn" in the article at all. I say we should because even though it is incorrect, it is a fairly common misnomer, worthy of being noted as such user: Stanley011

I'm still not clear where "incorrect" comes from, or even matters. It's a very widely accepted nickname for the university; its inclusion here pursues the purpose of the project, which is to catalog such information. If someone was trying to insert a totally neologistic name into the article, such as Penn U or something in a similar vein, I would totally understand the argument regarding its exclusion. However, whether Penn alumni, faculty, and students like it or not, UPenn is a widespread name for the University and should be included here. If an official quotation can be found from the administration saying "UPenn is incorrect," by all means, such a reference should be included—though even then "UPenn should be mentioned. Barring that, however, there really isn't any reason to support an assertion in the article that it's somehow wrong to use "UPenn". I was hoping that the University's web style guide, mentioned earlier in this thread, would make a declaration about the matter one way or another, but there's no instruction within the document to not use "UPenn", yet another glaring omission of instruction on the matter.

I would imagine, on a side note, that use of UPenn has become as widespread as it has because it's a convenient way of quickly differentiating between the University of Pennsylvania and Penn State... but that's neither here nor there. JDoorjam Talk 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments at the end of Shafer's article make interesting reading, for what they're worth. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very good at using the USPTO TESS trademark search facility, I'd like someone else to check this... it appears to me that doing a "structured form search" http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchstr&state=pnparc.1.1 and using Penn, field ALL, AND, University, field OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS, that a number of variations on "Penn" and "Penn University of Pennsylvania" have been trademarked. The interesting one to me is this one because I think that might be the earliest, and it says "first use in commerce: 1986." "University of Pennsylvania" was trademarked in 1992, with a claim of "first use in commerce 1894" [18]. UPenn does not appear to have been trademarked. It sort of sounds as if Penn decided to make "Penn" official in 1986. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, finally, we're getting somewhere... maybe. Can you file a trademark for a mark you have no intention of using? Nevertheless, if they haven't trademarked the name, then the article probably can say, what, "UPenn is not an official nickname" or something along those lines. "Untrademarked" strikes me as an odd way of putting it, but I could certainly see that being referenced.

I'm finding it really, really, really difficult to find a way to do any kind of online search for "UPenn, but not in a URL." Here's one book reference that shows up in a Google Books search: The Staff of the Yale Daily News (2004), The Insider's Guide to the Colleges, 2005, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0312323840, p. 819. How to interpret this? Take your choice: the Yale folks are too ignorant to know what nickname to use, or, this is (weak) evidence that students actually use UPenn a lot, regardless of what the college's branding standards may or may not say. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This search eliminates most of the upenn.edu hits, and it appears there are a number of publications that use UPenn. It's also clear the University wants to use Penn, not UPenn. So, some language suggestions: "...; UPenn is a widely used but unofficial nickname"? or perhaps "... (also known as Penn and UPenn, though Penn is generally preferred by the University and people associated with it)"? I think we have enough here to craft language that makes it clear the University intentionally and systematically uses "Penn" for all of its official documents and media, but that UPenn is also in wide use (assuming people agree that's an accurate assessment of the facts?).

Ah. Thanks for the search tip. You get even more (and different) hits if you use "U. Penn." At this point I'm convinced that "U. Penn" and "U Penn" have been in widespread and common use for many decades. I think "UPenn" is really the same thing, with the spelling/punctuation/whatever influenced by the domain name upenn.edu and perhaps by logos such as UMass. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC) P. S. I've seen a fair number of random sightings of "U. of Penn" as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Searching on "U Penn" exact phrase is interesting. A Google book search on "U Penn" comes up with IMHO reasonably strong evidence that "U. Penn" / "U Penn" and variations thereof have been in reasonably widespread use for a reasonably long time, and in some fairly formal contexts. It looks as if it might be the _standard_ way to abbreviate "University of Pennsylvania" when citing journal names, for example.

(Apropos of nothing, "Penn" seems to me like an odd choice anyway, because when I think of "Penn" the university is hardly the first thing that comes to mind; I have a lot of other associations, starting with William, of course. (With whom the University of Pennsylvania has no particular connection. Unlike William Penn University). Penn Station, Penn and Teller, Pennzoil... the first Google hit on "Penn" as I write this is Penn National Gaming Inc., ticker symbol PENN.) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am asking nicely please stop with the whole Penn/UPenn thing. You are confusing people. Since when did student columinsts become good sources of information. Personal attack removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etumretinw (talk • contribs)

I for one think that the Jeff Shafer article is a mixture of good information and personal opinion. I don't think it's an adequate source for UPenn being "incorrect." I think it's a reasonable source for the story on how the domain name was chosen. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to work on this matter.

dpbsmith said: "when I think of "Penn" the university is hardly the first thing that comes to mind; I have a lot of other associations, starting with William, of course." As fascinating as reading about your mental free association exercises is, they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Even though you write, "apropos of nothing" it is clear that you don't really feel this way, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered writing it in this section! I have yet to encounter anyone challenge my claim that "UPenn" is as deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the University as "Pennsylvania" "U of P" and "Penn." Just because UPenn is in common usage, does not make it "correct." What makes an organizational moniker 'correct' or 'incorrect', in the absence of an official dictum, is how deeply rooted it is in the history and tradition of the organization. I would like to find a single reference to UPenn before computers came into being--then we can talk. User:Stanley011

Stanley011, please be civil. You are framing the debate such that a shorthand reference to the school can be a correct or incorrect, which is not so. There is at least some acceptance of UPenn as an accepted moniker for the university, both within the ranks of students and alumni (the a cappella group Off the Beat, for instance, refers to themselves as "UPenn's perpetually BOCA-featured a cappella group) and outside of it. It is simply not an incorrect statement to say "The University of Pennsylvania is often referred to as UPenn." Language can be added explaining that Penn is preferred, but "UPenn" definitely belongs in the article, and "incorrect" remains unwarranted.

I agree with you but Smith and Lowe (JDoorjam) believe otherwise. Like I said before, we do not refer to the University of Oxford as "UOxford" or the University of Cambridge as "UCambridge." With regard to the statement wanting to ask Amy Guttman, well she is not a Trustee or an alumus. She was hired to do a job and only a job (run the university). Only alumni can make decisions on such matters. If a group of people in Maine pronounce the name Socrates wrong should we include it in Socrates history? I do not beleive it is correct to include "UPenn" at the top of the article. It is too confusing. I am willing to accept a reference at the bottom of the page stating that "Pennsylvania, " "Penn," "UPenn," and "University of Pennsylvania" have all been used at some point by certain people despite their lack of knowledge. I hope we can come to some kind of agreement. -- Etumretinw

I don't see why not. I agree that the details, which are at the moment quite interesting to you, me, JDoor, and Stanley101, are probably not that interesting to the average reader and probably should go in a footnote and not upfront. BTW I'd definitely add "U. Penn" to that list if you think it's different from "UPenn." The key here is to try to get everything in the form "A says B about C." It's not our job to decide what's correct or incorrect. It's not our job to decide who gets to decide what's correct or incorrect. Who said what about which nickname, and when did they say it? That's what we can say. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alumni get to decide what terminology is in common use? UPenn's widely accepted. That's not a decision alumni, or really, any distinct group gets to make. Your analogy is loaded, of course, as you're pre-supposing a small, obscure group of people are pronouncing a name wrong, whereas the "UPenn" issue has to do with a large group of widespread people using a nickname which cannot be said to be right or wrong. If "UPenn" is widely accepted, it belongs in the article; the only thing left to determine is what language to use to describe it. If UPenn is incorrect, what is the error being made, exactly? JDoorjam Talk 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My appologies to Smith for the rude tone of my previous post. My passion for nicknames sometimes gets the better of me! I've added the following to the first paragraph: In addition to "Penn," "U of P" and "Pennsylvania" are nicknames with deeply established roots in the history and tradition of the University; In recent years, "UPenn" has come into fairly common usage due to university officials establishing the domain name of the University as "upenn.edu." From what I've gleaned from this post, this should suit everyone's needs, since it avoids the "incorrect" construction. Someone more poetic than I am might want to clean it up gramatically, but the formula that I have used should remain. user: Stanley011

No offense taken.

I don't have a big problem with that language, but don't get upset if people continue to tinker with it. I think it's too long and I think the way to handle this, as with the 1740/1749 stuff, is a short statement in the opening and the details in a footnote.

User:Stanley011, I was missing a nuance. I've been regarding "U. Penn" and "UPenn" as essentially the same.

In any case, we're not going to get anywhere on the "correct" versus "incorrect" business. What we can do is assemble verifiable, sourced facts about nicknames, when they were used, by whom, and what officials said what about them. For example, I doubt that there's going to be an objective measure of what names are "deeply rooted in the history and tradition" of Penn. On the other hand, it would be interesting to find and cite early examples of the use of the nicknames. I agree that when researched it will probably turn out that the spelling "UPenn" without internal spacing or punctuation is probably related to the domain name and probably goes back only to the eighties. I wonder about "U. Penn." Just when did people start using "U." as familiar or affectionate usage? I have an idea it probably goes back no earlier than the 1920s but that's guessing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That sentence seems fair to the nickname issue; for NPOV and brevity reasons I'd suggest paring the first half of the sentence a bit to something like "... and Pennsylvania are long-standing nicknames of the University; in recent years...", but I'll let others take a first crack at that. Good work. JDoorjam Talk 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence seems to be too elaborate to be a parenthetical remark. I think the way to handle this is to start a section on nicknames, and leave out any mention of a nickname in the opening paragraph. What do others think of this idea? User:Stanley011

I juggled the parenthetical a little bit and put it in the next sentence, but even there, and smaller, it seems a bit out of place—it slows down the punch of the first paragraph, which is about to dive into Penn's accolades, by giving four other names for the place. OTOH, I'm not sure where else to put it.... Further thoughts? JDoorjam Talk 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've dithered between making it a section, which seems to be giving it more importance than it deserves, and a longish footnote. Either way, If we can resist the temptation to instant gratification, maybe we could try to compose it here before we put it in the article space.

There is still a fact or two I'd like to have, which is one reason I haven't been doing any wordsmithing myself.

• I think that it is very likely that at some point in time within the last couple of decades, there was some more or less formal decision made to treat Penn as a brand and define formal branding policies. It was probably at that time that it was decided that "Penn" should have some status as the official nickname; probably about the time the first of those trademarks on logos reading "Penn/University of Pennsylvania" was trademarked. (Darn, all those links I pasted in above are apparently just temporary session links). I'd really like to pin this down: when did "Penn" become "official," and who and how?
• I'm inclined to take the sentence from Jeff Shafer's article—"Ira Winston, the head of computing for the School of Arts and Sciences and the School of Engineering and Applied Science, was at Penn back then. In the early days of e-mail, he said the University chose upenn.csnet, which mimicked the University of Delaware's udel.csnet address"—as factual, and Shafer's article as a reasonable-enough source, because he ties it to a specific person and while the article is highly tendentious I think a direct quote is likely to be accurate.
• A new point that has occurred to me: if one consults a standard style guide—I knew I would be sorry I threw away my Chicago Manual of Style—and applies its advice on abbreviations, what is the standard way to abbreviate "University of Pennsylvania," according to the style guide? I betcha a nickel it turns out that it's "U. Penn" and that the frequent appearance of this abbreviation probably influenced the choice of domain name. By the way, how do you get from "upenn.edu" to "UPenn?" "UPenn" looks to me like a combination of the capitalization of "U. Penn" and the spacing (or lack thereof) of "upenn."
• What are some (sourced, verifiable) early examples of the use of each of the abbreviations? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• A reference to "Penn" in 1905
• A reference to "U-Penn" in 1990:
• A reference to "U Penn" in 1991:

I noted the difference between "nickname" and "abbreviation" in the opening paragraph. What do others think of my change? user:Stanley011 I have an idea. Let's include the nickname information in the "History" section. It's the appropriate place to add it user: Stanley011

I like the way the current footnote discusses the issue. It provides a bunch of resources for a reader who is interested in this subject to learn more about it, while avoiding obfuscattion of the main points of the lead paragraph. Yet, it introduces the nicknames and official abbreviations in the proper context.

This whole issue reminds me of similar issues at Carnegie Mellon, which has officially discourages the use of CMU [19], but also uses cmu.edu as its domain name. However, I believe that they decided not to use that nickname because other universities who felt they also had a claim to CMU protested. Unfortunately, it looks like the CMU page no longer makes mention of this. btm _talk 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some links provided by Jeff Shafer

Jeff Shafer has given consent to quote him, so I'm now including the previous contents of this section with his full reply. Of course, per the verifiability policy and the sources guidelines, personal emails cannot be used directly as sources within an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Shafer replied to my email. I forgot to ask him if it was OK to quote it directly, so I won't, but he provides quite a few data points and links, for which I thank him. Haven't had a chance to digest their contents yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Office of the Secretary, policy on use of the University's name.[20]
• Other style guides: http://www.upenn.edu/webguide/style_guide/identity.html http://www.business-services.upenn.edu/creativecommunications/pdf/logostyleguide.pdf
• A branding initiative called "One University" was undertaken in 2002 by president Rodin [21]

He says the push for Penn did not begin until the mid-1990s, "Pennsylvania" was used on athletic jerseys and changed to Penn in 2003 at Rodin's request. He says that in athletics "University of ... " anything is never used and this led to "Pennsylvania nationwide as the common syntax and Penn locally in Philadelphia." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

His email in full:

From: jshafer@wharton.upenn.edu
Subject: RE: UPenn/Penn
Date: March 15, 2006 1:18:20 AM EST
To: dpbsmithadhoc@dpbsmith.com

Hello, First, most of the information I compiled when writing this column came from face-to-face conversations and interviews with University officials over the course of several weeks. There are, however, a few links I can provide:

University secretary Leslie Kruhly is in charge of the official documentation for Penn. The secretary's Web site here explains proper name usage:

http://www.upenn.edu/secretary/nameuse.html

There are also several other style guides for various schools such as Wharton for using the University's name and identifying marks online and in print.

http://www.upenn.edu/webguide/style_guide/identity.html

And

http://www.business-services.upenn.edu/creativecommunications/pdf/logost yleguide.pdf

As for your second question about branding, Penn undertook a major initiative in 2002 to bring all of its schools and centers together with one identity, which precipitated the adoption of the logo the University uses currently. This was an offshoot of the "One University" initiative pushed by president Rodin. In the Fall of 2002, Penn's Web site was redesigned as were the identities of the various schools. Here's a story from the DP archives for reference:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/3d48ac7827f61?in_a rchive=1 As I mentioned in the column, the administration did not fully start pushing the Penn moniker until the mid 1990s. The athletic department used "Pennsylvania" on jerseys for most sports until, at Rodin's request, "Penn" was adopted in 2003. This was not an athletics-based thing, though. It started with the whole of the administration, and athletics has fallen in line behind it. Earlier most references were for "University of Pennsylvania" in the more academic sense, but in sports context "University of..." anything is never used. That led to Pennsylvania nationwide as the common syntax and Penn locally in Philadelphia, especially a in relation to the Big 5. Hopefully this helps, Jeff Shafer

---

Original Message-----

From: dpbsmithadhoc@dpbsmith.com [22] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:11 AM To: Shafer, Jeff Subject: UPenn/Penn

In your article, http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/16/43f433d 839822 , "Get rid of the damn 'U'", you say that UPenn is incorrect, plain and simple. You say: "All of this is contrary to the directives set forth in countless University manuals and procedures. There are very well-defined conventions for how to refer to the school, none of which permit the use of the ill-begotten 'UPenn.'"

I'm working on the Wikipedia article about Penn, and this issue has come up in discussion. Can you provide some references, preferably web links, to University sources that address this issue? In particular, I at least see a meaningful differencs between saying a) "The University itself uses Penn," b) "Penn is preferred,"c) "Use Penn," d) "Use _only_ Penn," and e) "Do _not_ use UPenn." The most interesting citation would be one that says specifically, e, not to use UPenn.

The second point I'd like to pin down is that your article implies that the specific "Penn" branding is, in fact, fairly recent and was not in effect in the 1980s. When exactly did it occur and in what circumstances?

Finally, at least some universities are very concerned with branding issues in connection with the athletic program, which is almost a business, and exert corporate-like control over team logos and so forth without necessarily extending that concern outside the athletic program. Was the "Penn" branding an initiative of the university as a whole, or of the athletic department?

Wordsmithing the opening sentence?

Is there a reason why people keep switching the subtitle to include UPenn? No one at the University refers to it as such.

I'm thinking the sentence in the opening

Penn is the moniker used by the university itself[footnote]

might be expanded to

Penn is the moniker used by the university itself and specified in its branding guidelines. Other nicknames, notably UPenn, are used in unofficial circles.[footnote]

I've changed my mind, it works pretty well as it stands. See below for vacillating thoughts... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The subtlety I'm trying to convey is this: what I've seen so far supports

"the university says to use Penn in any context establishing Penn's brand,"

but not

"the university says don't you ever ever dare use UPenn"

or

"Penn is right, UPenn is wrong and every time you say UPenn, Franklin weeps.

Problem is, as written this sentence could be interpreted to mean that Penn is sort of like the Susan B. Anthony dollar, foisted by officialdom against popular sentiment. I've been trying to figure out a way to say succinctly Penn is very popular independent of its official endorsement, and also that Penn is historical.

Penn is the historical moniker used by the university itself and specified in its branding guidelines. Other nicknames, notably UPenn, are used in unofficial circles.[footnote]

has the problem that I'm not sure how to support the phrase the historical moniker, while an historical moniker again sounds as if maybe the University is sticking to an outdated archaism.

Penn, the most common moniker, is used by the university itself and specified in its branding guidelines. Other nicknames, notably UPenn, are used in unofficial circles.

is getting to be too long and I'm not sure how to support the phrase "the most common." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I also think you have to specifiy what you mean by "official" v. "unofficial" circles, because we saw that there's an official, student group at Penn that uses "UPenn." user:stanley011

How about:

Penn is a common and long-used moniker which the university uses itself and specifies in its branding guidelines. Other nicknames, notably "UPenn," are also used.[footnote]

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought... "Penn is the moniker used by the university itself[footnote] works. Not many people will care, and they can read the footnote. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion does not count for more than anyone else's, but as the person who sparked this debate, and as the leading (former) proponent of the "UPenn is incorrect" camp, I thought I'd let you all know that I am very pleased with the result we have now. Good work! User:Stanley011 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I joined this discussion rather late, but anyway, here are my personal observations. When I matriculated at Cornell in 1997, a lot of people there used "UPenn". This included people who had friends and relatives at ahem, Penn, and also people who had relatives and friends at the various Ivy League schools. So I started using "UPenn" also. Toward the end of my stay at Cornell, I had noticed by that point, that some people used "Penn", but still many used "UPenn" (I guess old habits are hard to break). So it certainly matches the info from the above investigations into the matter. As an interesting observation, let me point out the inconsistent usage of "Penn" and "UPenn" in the Cornell Daily Sun: [23] [24] both use Penn but also UPenn somewhere in the article, [25], only uses the full name and once mentions "UPenn". These articles are from a few years ago. --C S (Talk) 13:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison was a) notable, and b) an alumnus.

CaveatLector removed William Henry Harrison from the section on "notable alumni" with the edit comment "William Henry Harrison attended the medical school for 4 months before dropping out, which i don't think i enough for alumni status)." But, as I've noted before, our article on alumnus and the dictionary definition of "alumnus" is (e.g.) "a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university."[26] Alumnus does not imply graduation, it merely implies attendance.

Harrison was a) notable, and b) an alumnus. The right thing to do is to annotate the entry explaining the situation, which I've done. It's possible that the main text, and not just the footnote, should note that his attendance was brief. The detail that he was forced to do so by his father and left as soon as his father died is relevant, amusing, and might be thought to be very slightly embarrassing to Penn, but "notable alumni" ought not to mean "notable alumni who reflect well on the school." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My intentions were based off of the (what I felt common) conception that, in order to have alumni status, one must attend the school for at least 2 years (or 4 terms). However, in light of alumnus I see that this was probably mistaken. CaveatLector^Talk 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Ed Paris from Notable Alumni section

Does being "Doctor of Medicine and first cousin of singer and actress Dinah Shore" warrant including Ed Paris among the notable alumni in this article? I don't think so, so I've removed his name.

Should he be included in List of University of Pennsylvania people? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Presumably he is an OD, since the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine does not award the MD degree. is it correct to describe an OD as a "Doctor of Medicine" or should the term "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" be used? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when Paris graduated, which was in the early 1940's the PCOM did award MD's, which he indeed receieved Stanley011 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected and am striking my comment above. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, do not strike your comments for it is I that stand corrected. Eddie Paris receieved a DO, not an MD from the PCOM. I believe he might have receieved his MD in California when he practiced hand surgery there, but I'm not 100% sure he ever receieved his MD. He receieved his DO from the PCOM Stanley011 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

I say he should definitely be included somewhere in the article. He was a very well-known hand surgeon in California and was the first cousin of Dinah Shore, as the entry mentioned. He died a few years ago. Stanley011 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO your best chance of getting this accepted is to find and cite a good, verifiable, third-party source (book, journal, etc.) that says he was a very well-known hand surgeon. I don't think being Dinah Shore's cousin is even worth mentioning unless he had some well-defined impact on her career and work, or vice versa. And I happen to be old enough to remember the Dinah Shore Chevy Show... and "Buttons and Bows" and "Love and Marriage." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Ed Paris article it might not be a bad idea to give his full name—unless "Ed Paris" is his full name, which if so should be mentioned—and his birth and death dates. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the entry back into "notable alumni" because I feel strongly that he belongs there. However, if someone were to make the case that he should be listed instead under University of Pennsylvania people I would certainly be very open to putting him there Stanley011 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

His article is up for deletion, and his only notability is being a relative of someone famous, without any involvement or noteriety on his own. Why is this person "notable"? JUST for being related to someone famous??? - CobaltBlueTony 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. He is also a noted hand surgeon, as his page indicates. I figured I'd include him under notable alumni, but maybe the list of Penn people is betterStanley011 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Unless there are objections, I decided to strike the Ed Paris inclusion until I am able to acquire some good sources. If there are any serious objections to me striking him out, let me know, because I've been persuaded by dpbsmith that we need some sources before we can include him here Stanley011 23:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Footnotes

I've noticed that the first superscript denoting a footnote is "3." Wouldn't the more logical place to start be "1?" Is there anything we can do to fix this?