Talk:Cornell University/Archive 1

Page Clean Up

The Cornell page is in dire need of a major overhaul. It frequently lacks sources. There are numerous randomly inserted factoids. While pictures are not necessary as User:Xtreambar seems to imply, the page could use more. As an Ivy League school, this page gets a high volume of traffic. As such, it should seem all the more clear that this article should have a higher standard of quality than what currently exists. I suggest looking at a page such as University of Virginia (Yes, I know that UVa is not an Ivy) --128.84.16.90 01:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I concur, "About Cornell" is mainly a dumping group of University factoids. --Xtreambar 02:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• The page is now, no longer in such a painful need of clean-up. Though more is needed, I have removed the "Clean-Up Needed" Banner. --Xtreambar 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I had also been thinking that the page was in need of a major overhaul. I haven't had a chance to look at the recent changes (by Xtreambar), but I think that page really lacks (or lacked) the necessary perspective about the effects Cornell has had on American higehr education — which should appear in the lead section. I also agree with 128.84.16.90 on the point that article includes some non-encyclopedic sections and statements. btm 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• I took a quick look, and I think you did a nice job with the new info, Xtreambar. However, I agree that more is still needed; hopefully I can take a shot at overhauling the article soon. btm 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures Clean-Up

Does anyone have any good photos that could fill in the blanks left by images that were removed from this article? --Xtreambar 22:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Clara Dickson Hall

There was a separate article about Clara Dickson hall, which evidently originally claimed the building housed 1000 students. It also claimed to be the largest dorm on the eastern half of the US; clearly this is incorrect since UMich has at least four dormitories with capacity in excess of 450, and the USNA's Bancroft Hall is over eight times as large as Clara Dickson. If Clara Dickson Hall has any significance (largest hall, etc.), it should be noted in this article. Presently, Clara Dickson Hall redirects here, but I will nominate it for deletion if nothing substantial appears here in the next week or so. Fsiler 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Queries

Can someone please explain the following: "the only university-wide requirements for a baccalaureate degree are to pass a swimming test and take two physical education courses". Does this mean that, say for example, if you wish to complete a degree in egnineering you have to pass a swimming test? --Commander Keane 11:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is, for the most part, correct. As a minor, technical, point, students who transfer to Cornell may be exempt from part or all of the PE requirement, including the swim test. See, for example, [1] and [2]. Additionally, nearly all undergrads (I think CALS students are the only exception) are required to take a writing seminar, unless they have AP or transfer credit [3].Kime1R 00:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the language stating all undergraduate students must complete two writing seminars. First, the requirement may be bypassed with AP or transfer credit as noted, and several colleges only require one writing seminar. Furthermore, my understanding is that the writing seminars are technically college requirements, not university-wide requirements, for instance note the distinction made about "university" physical education requirements by the College of Arts and Sciences [4]. -choster 06:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just as a follow up for Commander Keane's question, I was pursuing an engineering degree in Cornell and I had to take a semester of swimming to pass that annoying swim test. What a pain in the ass. Sorry about being so npov. 68.40.50.73 04:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Myth about swim requirement

Someone with more time than me should write something about myths surrounding the swim requirement. The usual story I hear is that some rich kid drowns and his/her rich parents donates lots of money with the condition that all graduates be required to learn how to swim. There are many variations of this, and other schools with the same requirement have stories about it too. The actual reason seems to have been dug up by Snopes.com (among others) [5]. --C S July 2, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a way for Cornell to get people to take swimming classes. Ll 20:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a well-established legend; a relative of mine who attended Cornell in the 1920s was familliar with this myth and told it to me as true. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the full story on the swim test from a Cornell Daily Sun article in October 2005. [6] CREarle 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Campus: Urban

I have been to Cornell many times (my brother went there), and I must say that there is nothing urban about the area (Ithaca or the campus). I am not going to remove the "urban" label, but would ask someone who goes there if they would?

Ithaca is a small city, but it is a city. The campus is urban as opposed to suburban or rural, although it is most certainly not metropolitan. Is there a word which properly conveys this sense?

As a Cornell alumnus, I would certainly call the campus rural. Ithaca does not surround the campus in any real sense, and apart from Collegetown, it is noticeably detached from the rest of the city. --Slightlyslack 12:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Cayuga's Waiters edit

Are we really going to get into listing and describing individual student groups on the main page? According to the student activities office, there are over 700 of them. I think it would be better to put this description in a separate article, and put it in the (already existing) Category:Cornell_University category. Kime1R 12:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since there are many far older or more notable organizations such as Quill and Dagger, the Sun, CHA, the Savoyards, the Chimemasters, CURW, etc.; we could not expect to list all of these on in the main article.choster 16:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Waiters are mentioned (rightly) in the Cornell University Glee Club article, as they were originally a sub-set of that group. Their name now redirects to that page. JDoorjam 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Did a Harvardian write the hockey section?

The rivalry between Cornell and Harvard has been quite vigorous in recent years.

While it might not be NPOV, I think it's fair to say that the rivalry lately has been at least somewhat one-sided, in at least two senses. Firstly, from what I've heard, Harvard students don't pay nearly as much attention to the rivalry as Cornell students do. More quantitatively, Cornell has gone 15-3-1 (if I count correctly) in regular season games vs. Harvard since the 95-96 season http://www.tbrw.info/ecac/ecac_h2hbyteam.html. Kime1R 21:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additions of user 24.6.177.206

It seems to me that several of the changes made from the IP 24.6.177.206 have NPOV issues. Also, as there have been reverts back and forth, it's probably worth putting on the record (ie. on this discussion page) a dialogue regarding whether to describe Cornell as private or as private and public. My vote: private and public. Kime1R 06:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Prestige" issue

Every university-related article in Wikipedia seems to witness a gradual escalation of the nature and extent of the institution's "prestige" by one measure or another. IMHO Cornell's prestige is self-evident given its faculty, rankings, memberships, and history. It is not necessary to belabor the point by repeating the word in breathtaking superlatives. -choster 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how few people consider cornell a prestigious institution. Especially outside of the US, cornell is recognized as the last choice of most applicants. It's still ivy, so it's sorta ok, but only if you didn't get into any of the other ones.

I find that hard to believe whoever just replied. When looking at international rankings, Cornell generally fits right in the middle of the other Ivys. For example, in the London Times rankings last year, Cornell was ahead of UPenn, Brown, and Dartmouth. See [7] . Or see the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings, [8]. Cornell ranks above Dartmouth and UPenn. As I see it, the rest of the world does not see Cornell as the bottom of the barrel Ivy League school, but rather one that is in the middle of the road. --Xtreambar 18:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm from outside the US, and the only schools that people in Asia and Europe who apply to US schools talk about are Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton. If you don't get into those, then you are 2nd tier. Anything else is considered 2nd level...

Uh huh. And I'm certain Mr/Ms outside-the-US has spoken to everyone who lives in Asia and Europe about how they feel about American universities. And has a mountain of evidence to support his/her belief, from foreign rankings and published writings that echo the sentiment; and the two actual citations given above by Xtreambar are just flukes that don't represent the reality of opinion in the rest of the world. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find bald assertions by anons without any kind of evidence or even explanation to be about as persuasive as my three-year-old niece's declarations that her brother is a "stupid head". Try again. Nohat 09:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a misunderstanding. You guys are right that Cornell is a pretty highly ranked University, and is also a leading Ivy League University. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm from Singapore, and what I'm talking about is simply the sentiment of people regarding different universities. All of my cousins and their friends who are applying to colleges (this is VERY competitive in Singapore) confirm my statements. In Singapore, if you are in the upper class, getting into a very good US University is a life-and-death matter. It's far more competitive than for people in the US who apply to US colleges. In any case, I can tell you that in Asia, people try to shoot for Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Yale. If they don't get into these schools it's considered a failure. If you get into Cornell that's like last tier over there. I mean parents will be ashamed that their son or daughter had to go to Cornell because it's the last choice for people. I know the rankings say otherwise, but people there don't care about rankings, they care about reputation. Is this shallow? Sure, it's shallow. I'm just saying it's how people feel. Not saying they're right.

I can sort of confirm this sentiment. I don't know about Singapore, but in Bangalore, where US college admissions is also extremely cut-throat, we considered the same universities top-tier, and Cornell was 2nd-tier. It's kind of sad... people who got into Harvard were almost regarded as gods and the Cornell people were made fun of ;)

This is all "very fascinating", but it's not something that can be included in this article because there's no way to verify it. Furthermore, it's not particularly relevant—some people who wear Versace look down on people who wear Armani, but that's not a fact worth mentioning on either the Versace or the Armani article. For the same reason, the alleged opinions of upper-class foreigners about high-end American universities is not really interesting enough to be mentioned here. On the other hand, the opinions of people that actually matter, like those who make college rankings, are interesting and verifiable, and so can be included. Nohat 08:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More bad news for the Cornell alums on here. I can verify that my school mates in Europe (Germany to be specific) consider Cornell to be of 2nd caliber. Far below the schools that everyone recognizes as Top (ie Harvard, Stanford, etc). Sorry guys!

You've all missed my point entirely. My criticism does not require any consensus on the question of whether and to what extent Cornell is an "elite university." NOBODY CARES. I merely explained why I was repeatedly deleting self-congratulatory references or reverting additions of the same in accordance with WP guidelines. Sheesh. -choster 06:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cornell is actually normally considered more prestigious abroad than in the U.S., because it was the leader in the green revolution. In Africa and other regions I hear that Cornell is considered the most prestigious Ivy for that reason, because without the research that took place there many millions would have starved to death. Alex Krupp 22:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a terrible circular conversation you people seem to have got yourselves tangled up in. It does look like all those anonomous anti-Cornell jibes came from the same person... I could check by looking at the talk page history, but can't really be bothered. Anyway, here's my 10 cent contribution: Cornell is not as famous as Harvard et al, outside the US at least. But fame depends upon all sorts of factors, and some very famous universities are not what they were (I hear the Sorbonne isn't competing so well these days). Prestige is a subjective thing and not at all worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, but for any fans of the genius Nabokov, Cornell's status is hugely elevated by his having lectured there. Palefire 13:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

First off, outside the U.S., Cornell is considered far more prestigious than Brown, Dartmouth, or Penn. The London Times rankings verify this. While your chums may feel otherwise, I'll stick with the London Times rankings, thanks.

Second, within the U.S., Cornell takes a backseat in prestige to only a handful of schools, and within the Ivies, only to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. If you looked only at the private colleges at Cornell, its acceptance rate would be around 20% and its median SAT would be over 1420 - higher than that of Brown and on par with Columbia and Penn. Many of my friends chose Cornell over other Ivies and pseudo Ivies such as Duke and Northwestern and even Stanford. I chose it over Penn and Dartmouth myself.

I couldn't agree more with the person who wrote the last comment. I would like to add, however, that the real 'failiures' are those who consider that it is a 'faliure' to have to go to Cornell just because one could not get into MIT, Stanford, Harvard, or the likes for undergraduate education (regardless of where you are from--I'm from an asian country, one that is as competitive if not more than Singapore). As mentioned by the previous commenter, Cornell does take a backseat to Hahvahd, Yale, and Princeton in the matter of overall prestige. But seriously, no one that I know (even from Singapore or India) would want to go to Yale or Harvard for 'double e,' or any other kind of engineering, over Cornell (I concede that they might choose to go to Princeton). As I was applying for summer internships, there were companies such as Xerox / Parc, that only accepted students from MIT, Stanford, Cornell, and Berkeley. And as far as graduate school application goes, it's actually an advantage being from Cornell and not from Stanford, MIT, or Caltech. Most of those schools like to obtain doctoral candidates from other SIMILARLY prestigious schools--and this indeed gave many Cornellian (even international ones) top picks for MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Berkeley (trust me, I know because I was amongst those people =). Therefore, I re-emphasize my point that it is not a 'failiure' or 'life-and-death' (or rather not a death) situation if you cannot go to your top choice of schools regardless of who you are (race, colour, country of origin, or religion). On second thought, addressing the singaporean who commented, your cousins might just end up at Cornell for graduate school after finishing Princeton or Harvard or whatever, and that's something to be proud of because Cornell is very hard to get into for a PhD.

And to those Europeans who have some beef with Cornell's reputation, with a few exceptions (such as Cambridge and Oxford) most of your top-tier institutions are ranked lower than Cornell by any standard of world rank, and I realize there are a couple of standards. I do agree that self-righteous and self-congratulative writing should not be included in the article; however, there is also no need for any negative remarks from those who have no standing in the matter or from those who have nothing other than subjective comments to make their argument. Ll 20:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The prestige section is entirely without references to any sources, studies, articles, opinion polls, or hell, the reading of tea leaves. Further, the history of Cornell's logo -- they changed from the University seal to the "big red box," back to the seal -- is hardly worth an entire section in an encyclopedic entry. The section reeks of subjectivity and has been removed. (Oh, and by the way, my Singaporean chums, Cornell has more students from Singapore than any school outside Singapore itself.) JDoorjam 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That this issue is clearly controversial is not sufficient grounds for an entire section to be deleted. Rereading the section of interest, I find that with some minor tweaking to round some of its perceived bias, the section has merit. In fact, the dialogue above shows that the issue bears some importance to the people that are the lifeblood of the institution: its students. As such, the section will be returned some minor changes, and I encourage others to add the substance (in the form of articles and opinion polls, and possibly freshman statistics) that JDoorjam found lacking, instead of merely deleting a clearly pertinent section. 02:11, 07 August 2005 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. Other far less prestigious schools are, no doubt, trying to "close the gap" between themselves and top-tier universities, and yet this isn't an issue on, say, the George Washington University page, or the University of California at Santa Barbara page. Yes: an image committee did exist, and so I suppose that's encyclopedic.... though, being rather familiar with the issue, I do wonder whether a small group of (admittedly active) students who only arguably and indirectly affected change to the format of the viewbook and website are truly worth encyclopedic mention, especially as they had no direct hand in the redesign process. Anything outside of that, however, that is not backed up by articles, opinion polls, etc., seems to lack NPOV. JDoorjam 04:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Things That the Page Needs

I think that the page would be improved with the following additions. First, the page needs more pictures. This will break up the article and therefore make it easier for the average person to glance at the page and get a good idea about Cornell. Second, a few topics about Cornell Traditions would be good to add or link to. Topics include Dragon Day, tray sledding, and the lyrics to "Give My Regards to Davy" and "Far Above Cayuga's Waters". --Xtreambar 07:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I partly solved the lack of images issue, but I still am certainly looking for one more picture: the Cornell Seal! I mean... come on. I am having a very hard time trying to find one on the internet. By seal, I mean the multi-colored shield like the one in the Ivy Room, if anyone knows what I am talking about. If someone can find it and replace the corporate logo, I think that would be awesome. --Xtreambar 01:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the one that's on page 4 of the Cornell identity style guide: [9] Nohat 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a version of it to Wikipedia. Image:Cornell emblem.png Nohat 05:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the logo currently being used here (with the "founded by Ezra Cornell" tag line) is out-of-date. The current one is just single-colored, more simply styled and has a tag line about the date of the university's founding. It's all on the university style guide web pages. - Spiralhighway 16:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't confuse the logo with the seal emblem—or their appropriate uses. An encyclopedia article certainly entails a formal representation of the university, . See the CU style guide referenced by Nohat above. - choster 17:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that the identity style guide says that the normal logo is to be used in all cases, and the formal emblem is only to be used in ceremonial applications such as the university flag, on presidential podiums, and commencement regalia. I think we are within our rights to exhibit the emblem on this page, but we would be misrepresenting the university if we used it as though it were the university's normal logo. Nohat 05:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That seal is good, but whatever happened to the one that is just the shield? Like the one in this picture on the Ivy League page? Did the image/style committee totally toss that one out the window? I mean, every other Ivy has their shield as their official logo in their info. boxes. I will be very depressed if that shield is now completely unkosher.

From page 20 of the style guide: "Do not take the shield out of the ring." It also says "Do not use filters such as drop shadows to alter or stylize the insignia." The other ivies probably have similar policies but not available in a publicly-available document like Cornell's. Personaly, I find the Image:Ivyshields.jpg treatment of the shields to be fairly disrespectful to all the Ivy League universities because as far as I can tell, none of them use their shields like that at all anymore, and I'm sure that none of them like having their shield stylized with drop shadows. It's not really our place to be modifying their logos to conform to our own aesthetic standards. As far as I'm concerned we should only use their official logos as is, without modification. Nohat 19:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim Nohat. For example, I point to this Princeton header from the official Princeton webpage which clearly shows a dropped shadow on their shield or here at Harvard or Brown.

--Xtreambar 19:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the style guide for yourself if you don't believe me [10]. I can't speak to the other universities' logos, but it is definitely not within our fair use rights to create our own derivative works of copyrighted images, and in this particular case, the copyright owners of the Cornell shield and logo have explicitly forbidden removing the shield from the ring and adding drop shadows. This is not fair use—this is copyright violation. Nohat 20:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the copyright owners "forbid" or "allow"; fair use is fair use and nothing they say can affect someone else's right to fair use. Of course, that leaves open the question of whether this is fair use. It doesn't seem clear to me that it is, but I don't see how you can be so certain it is not. Fair use sometimes allows the use of copyrighted material in derivative works; a number of factors comes into play here including whether the derivative is meant to supercede the original or profit from use of the copyrighted material. --C S 23:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The copying and subsequent stylization of a copyrighted work for purely aesthetic but not artistic purposes (as here) has never been a legitimate fair use purpose. Nohat 04:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Housing Article

I think that an article on Cornell housing might be interesting. This would be a list of the dorms on campus and a quick piece of information about each. I wrote up one on Risley. --Xtreambar 21:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, rather than create a housing article, I created a couple new articles on various Cornell dormitories and included all the dormitory pages in a new category : "Cornell University Dormitories".--Xtreambar 04:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

wouldn't it make more sense to create a general housing or housing campus page, given that there are only stubs for some of the dorms, and not even an article for North or West Campus? I understand the reasoning behind an article for Risley, but shouldn't the other houses be combined under West and North Campus articles? --Moki80 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"prestige" comment

Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not a private school

Cornell is not private. This is misleading. It is partially public, therefore it is not private. Can someone change this in the description?

Cornell is a private university that operates several colleges by contract with New York State. Operating those colleges does not make Cornell a public university in the way the University of California or the other campuses in the State University of New York system are public. As a contractor to the state, Cornell University is as public an institution as the contractors who build roads for the department of transportation. In other words, not public at all, but instead a private entity providing a service to the public by contract with the government. Nohat 04:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a private university with state-funded colleges, so the description is not innaccurate.

One more thing, Cornell is MOST DEFINITELY a private university. Although it is also known as the land-grant institution of New York State as there are certain state sponsored colleges (AG, Hotel, ILR, etc), Cornell is NOT a public school [11]. Ll 20:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Suicides

Although the suicide rate is not well above the national average for college students, many of the Ithaca residents and visitors who do commit suicide are former students who have either dropped out or been asked to take a semester off for mental health reasons. While I was a student there we joked that they kept an administrator on location under the bridge to unenroll students before they hit the ground. The suicide rate was anomalously high one year that I attended and included one faculty member and at least three enrolled students, but that is well within the realm of statistical fluctuations. Nissyen

Presidents

I notice that the current president is Rawling- he was Cornell's 11th president, and the twelth was Lehman- but Lehman just "resigned" after two years, and Rawling is taking care of things in the meantime... should this be mentioned anywhere?

If someone's feeling plucky it might make sense to make a table of all of them, with sub-pages, as relevant, to bio pages. (If someone's feeling positively wiktastic they could do the same for board presidents.....) JDoorjam 13:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Prestige, one more time. With feeling.

I thought about this long and hard. I researched and I shopped around. And then I looked up the word "prestigious." Cornell University, despite the unsigned and undocumented rantings above, is one of the world's most respected institutions. Even if you want to go by U.S. News and World Report's rankings, which of course is not the most accurate way to precisely measure the reputation of a place -- short of international polling I'm not sure what metrics exist for that, but whatever -- Cornell ranks in the top .5% of colleges and universities in the United States. When you go to add all the rest of the universities in the world, even allowing that a small number of schools have a more widely known and prestigious reputation, such as Oxford, I'm willing to bet that waaayyyy more schools end up below Cornell on the prestige-o-meter than above it. There are a whole lot of articles out there which back up the whole "Cornell is prestigious" thing. Please hit me up with some respectable sources who state that Cornell is not prestigious. Is this going to start a run on the word "prestigious" at other university pages? Who cares? If you have a problem with U.C.S.B. calling themselves "prestigious," go tell them so on their talk page. But when a university cranks out a bunch of Nobel prizes and Pulitzers and a Supreme Court justice and an astronaut and, lest we forget, Jimmy Smits, it gets to use the P word. JDoorjam 03:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but have come to the conclusion that it's best to avoid vague concepts like "prestige" and just stick to facts. Otherwise it inevitably turns into a "whose college is better" pissing match. Nohat 04:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. If you are going to add "prestige" to this article, you better add it to my favorite school too. So it's all or nothing. Jawed 06:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your favorite school? I would wholeheartedly endorse adding the term "prestigious" to Stanford's page. This is hardly a "whose college is better" pissing match. It is quite factually one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Whose piss are you concerned about, exactly? JDoorjam 11:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha, nice citations ;) I hardly think that will remain there... You see, the problem is once you add prestigious to one school, everyone wants it, and there will be disagreements. For example, I don't consider Northwestern or Duke prestigious at all (in fact, not even close). But their alumni do. And they'll wan to add prestigious to their articles too. And at that point, 'prestigious' loses its meaning. And then we might as well not add it anywhere. Know what I mean? Jawed 16:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that argument, and you raise two good examples, as I agree with one and not the other. The thing is, it's simply not a false statement to say that Cornell is respected throughout the United States and around the world. It seems the big disagreement here doesn't even have to do with Cornell, but with whether the hypothetical use of the word "prestigious" by other universities will or will not be accurate. U2's page says they're one of the most popular bands in the world; does that hurt other bands' feelings? Are we worried about a rash of other bands saying that they, too, are each one of the most popular in the world? Of course not. If you're worried about Duke being called "prestigious," go argue it out at Duke University. But no one seems to be leaping forward to say Cornell isn't prestigious, at least not anyone willing to sign their name. JDoorjam 17:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

But I don't want to argue it out over at the Duke article :) That burden would fall on YOU, not on me, as a result of you adding prestigious to the Cornell article. So now go to every single university article that wants to add prestigious and convince them not to. Jawed 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand Nohat's and Jawed's arguments, the two main reasons for not describing Cornell as presitigous are:

1) Even though they do not dispute that Cornell is prestigious under several reasonable criteria for prestige, they fear that listing Cornell as a prestigious school (something they also agree as factually correct) will start a "pissing match" where everyone will claim their school to be prestigious even though some of these schools are demonstrably not prestigious under the same criteria for prestige.

2) Also, whoever puts down the fact that Cornell is prestigious is under the burden of making sure that every other article about a university or college does not list it as prestigious.

Well, no. 1 is basically an "appease the barbarians at the gate" argument. Even though everyone recognizes when someone makes a false claim about their university's prestige, because these people cause so much trouble we should be extra careful and avoid stirring them up. Following this line of thought is really detrimental in the end for Wikipedia. But admittedly Wikipedia is prone to this much of the time. There's a lot of space given to crackpot ideas and such. I can certainly understand Nohat and Jawed if they do not wish to fight against misinformation for the sake of cohesion and harmony on Wikipedia.

No. 2 is basically ridiculous. There's no reason that putting information on one article puts a burden on the editor to make sure that people do not put misinformation on all tangentially related articles. I'm sure Jawed does not apply this "edit burden" to other articles s/he edits. --C S 17:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to NPOV to ensure that claims made are neutrally described and appropriated cited. I have restored all the deleted citations, but moved the entire section describing Cornell's prestige to the second paragraph. I have also toned down the claim because frankly most of those citations do not support the claim that Cornell is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. They either say that Cornell is one of the most presitigious universities in the country, or that some particular program or school at Cornell is prestigious, not necessarily the University as a whole. I think that the whole section should be made more-fact based like the equivalent section at Harvard University, which manages to make the school look extremely prestigious without ever using that word. I am reminded of a sentence from Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms: Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves. If your ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters your writing and convinces no one. Nohat 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is all and good, but blind adherence to the avoidance of so-called peacock terms does no good here. The original Harvard article was much better before the whole business started of implying Harvard's prestige without directly saying so. If you've paid attention to the talk page for Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, you will have seen some good examples of "positive peacocks". I believe the Harvard (and now Cornell) examples are of the same kind. The original statement that Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities said a lot more than the current mush of data from U. S. News, et al. The fact of the matter is that plenty of schools can assemble a very similar mush of data, but none of them are Harvard. --C S 20:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. Facts supported by cited evidence are always better than vague, uncited claims. If you can't support a claim with clear evidence, then the claim does not belong in a Wikipedia article, period. Nohat 21:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I really hope you don't go editing Albert Einstein because you feel the opening sentence is vague: "Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist of Swiss and American citizenship, who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." It's fine the way it is. --C S 21:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I decided, in all honesty, and without peeking, to let the level of subjectivity of the New York Yankees guide my judgment. Here we have an organization with passionate fans, and a page trying to have an NPOV. They feel comfortable saying "generally considered one of the most storied teams in baseball." The San Francisco Giants have not leapt onboard the "storied" bandwagon. I've already demonstrated that "prestigious" is quite citable, though I also agree with you: demonstrable figures are better, in general. Adjectives, however, also serve an important purpose. I've trimmed down your edit (as prestige is inherently subjective) and my links (as, let's face it, nobody really wants 12 hyperlinks so they can look around at the use of a word). I've also linked prestigious so if there's any doubt about what it means, people can go and take a look. How does this fly? JDoorjam 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, why is everyone so seized with the word "prestige"? Cornell is a member of the Ivy League. It has competitive admissions. It has a laundry list of famous faculty and alumni. Neither the partisans of Brown University, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, nor of University_of_Pennsylvania are so insecure about their institutions that they need to explicitly report their pretigiousness. Neither, for that matter, do Duke University or Stanford University. In my freshman writing seminar I recall being taught to show rather than say, let's stick to the USN&WR "academic reputation" note like Yale does and be done with it. - choster 22:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Columbia does refer to itself as "one of the most prestigious universities in the world," Brown refers to itself as one "one of the nation's foremost universities," Penn's page says that they're "considered to be a leader in the sciences, the humanities, law, medicine, education, engineering and business," and Stanford refers to itself as "world-renowned". Duke only stopped using the word "prestigious" because of the silly argument we're having here, that if they did it then everybody else would do it. So... you're wrong. JDoorjam 14:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The individual college pages

... are pretty barren. If anyone knows anything about any of them, it would be helpful to add what you know to those pages. Cheers, JDoorjam 14:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Founder of Western Union"

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says that Ezra Cornell founded Western Union. A quick Google search will show that this is not the case, however it also shows why there is confusion on this issue. The only "reliable" page that flat-out makes this false claim, outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia-derived sites, is the CMU library at [12], which is basically just a link to Ezra Cornell's letters and papers. Not a single page on cornell.edu makes this claim; I think it would be on there if it were true. In fact, this page [13] claims that the founder was Hiram Sibley. Other pages making this claim: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Others claim that it was founded by Jeptha Wade [19], [20], [21], but this probably just has to do with the complex hisory of Western Union, as many pages states that it was "founded by a group of businessmen in Rochester." This page [22] helpfully explains that EC renamed a company to "New York & Western Union Telegraph Company," so you are right the EC came up with the name, however this is not known as the predecessor of Western Union [23]. I suggest that next time, you actually check your facts, instead of promulgating questionable claims on Wikipedia. I also, helpfully, suggest that if you can check out this DVD [24] at Cornell's library, it's pretty interesting. - 24.47.236.78 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that

Meanwhile, Cornell had bought back one of his bankrupt companies and renamed it the New York & Western Union Telegraph Company. Originally fierce competitors, by 1855 both groups were finally convinced that consolidation was their only alternative for progress. The merged company was named The Western Union Telegraph Company at Cornell's insistence.

doesn't state that Ezra Cornell was a founder of the Western Union company? This implies that multiple companies merged to form what is today Western Union, and fits in with the timeline on Western Union's own page. Please explain. JDoorjam 22:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What CUL's page (the one you quote) seems to be saying is that the company that is now known as Western Union was started by some businessmen, lead by Hiram Sibley (of Sibley Hall fame), in Rochester, NY, as "New York & Mississippi Valley Printing Telegraph Company," and that the founding of this entity is what is considered to be the beginning of Western Union (as per WU's own timeline). However, consolidation was rampant during this time and it seems that EC sold his company for shares in Western Union, which is what would eventually make him a millionaire (as the WU timeline says, the name change occurred "following [the] acquisition of a series of competing telegraph systems"). - 24.47.236.78 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a takeover with a merger. Sibley, et al's acquiescence to the name and the passage quoted indicate this was a mutually beneficial deal. Usually in a merger, founders of each company are still considered founders of the resulting merged companies. If one side can lay claim to the founding, shouldn't it be the side that forced the merged companies to continue on with its name? Suppose two companies like Jack-in-the-Box and Wendy's decide to merge by the former acquiring the latter, but being renamed Wendy's in the process. Is Dave Thomas still considered a founder of Wendy's? You say no, but it's not clear how you come to this decision.

As for your challenge, you have lost:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Cornell, Alonzo B.(kôrnl´) (KEY) , 1832–1904, American businessman and politician, b. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell was a director (1868–69) and vice president (1870–76) of the Western Union Telegraph Company, founded by his father, Ezra Cornell. [25]

Found in less than one minute of Google searching! This whole debate is very interesting; Western Union's own history (which was plagiarized for the Western Union Wikipedia article) says:

After a series of acquisitions of competing companies by Jeptha Wade, the company changed its name to Western Union Telegraph Company in 1856 to signify the joining of telegraph lines from the west to the east coast.

But this is deceptive. Acquisition implies takeover, but in a takeover one isn't usually forced to change one's name to acquired company's name. And the passage is cleverly phrased to avoid mentioning that the name change was due to Cornell.--C S 08:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Per Chan-Ho Suh, I've added "Ezra was a founder of Western Union" which, at this point, is pretty clearly an accurate statement. And I definitely agree: this has been an interesting and educational discussion. JDoorjam 15:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Ezra Cornell was an important player in Western Union's history and that Western Union is important in both the history of Ezra Cornell and Cornell University and I don't dispute this in any way. However, I still think it's a questionable claim to say that Ezra Cornell was a founder of Western Union. The current claim that he was among the founders is not blatantly wrong, and certainly is an arguable point, but it is still a highly questionable claim. The DVD, which is highly recommended, that I referred to in my original post gives a very different view of this so-called merger. The scholars on the DVD, clearly very knowledgeable about Cornell's history, basically say that Ezra Cornell was backed into being taken over by the Western Union businessmen. I'm going to leave the current statement the way it is for now, but I want to emphasize that we should be striving to present things in as accurate a manner as possible. - 24.47.236.78 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For the benefit of Wikipedians who have no way to get to the content of the DVD, I am transcribing the relevant part here:

Narrator: "All his years toiling in the telegraph industry had failed to make Cornell a wealthy man, but getting out of it, would make him a millionaire. In 1855, he was summoned to a meeting with investors who were forming a new telegraph company called Western Union."

Scholar 1: "By the time Western Union was being created, Ezra Cornell, who has been a competitor of Sibley and some of the others involved in Western Union and didn't much like them—thought they were the 'big boys'—Ezra Cornell was losing so much money and had lost his partners, that he was backed into the position of having to accept their offer of taking him in or else being cut out totally."

Scholar 2: "They were going to take over these telegraph companies and Cornell could join with them or they would basically fight him for them. So he winds up with a big chunk of Western Union stock, and of course Western Union stock becomes very, very successful; the Civil War breaks out—communications stocks do very well during wars.

I want to add that the claim we are discussing seems to have been perpetuated partly as a result of the kind of precarious logic employed by Chan-Ho above: Western Union took the name of Ezra Cornell's company, therefore Ezra Cornell's company entered the merger, at worst, as an equal and, at best, as the acquirer (either of which imply that Ezra Cornell is Western Union's founder or a founder). The sources that I consider to be the ultimate authorities on this subject, historians and professors at Cornell who know about Cornell, do not make any such claim (at least anywhere that I have seen, including Morris Bishop's "A History of Cornell," the PBS DVD about Cornell and all of the pages on Cornell's Web site) and thus I strongly question its veracity, and believe that we should err on the side of caution in making such claims. - 24.47.236.78 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As another answer to the challenge, I was amused to note that the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on Ezra Cornell begins:

Ezra Cornell born Jan. 11, 1807, Westchester Landing, N.Y., U.S. died Dec. 9, 1874, Ithaca, N.Y., businessman, a founder of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and a guiding force in the establishment of Cornell University.

Now what are we to make of all this? Is it that these sources employed a kind of precarious logic (such as the kind I use), or is it that they are just using the definition of "found"? The definition appropriate here is given by Oxford American Dictionary as the second one: establish or originate (an institution or organization), esp by providing an endowment [my emphasis]. Of course in the situation we are talking about, Cornell got a "big chunk" of Western Union stock. So his contribution must have been fairly significant.

So maybe all those scholars you refer to don't bother making such a claim because it's obvious from the definition. It's just like how in no science textbook do you find the claim that the world exists. But you shouldn't deduce from that that the claim that the world exists is tenuous at best.

Let me conclude by saying that my "precarious" argument as summarized by the anon is inaccurate. I never said or implied that Cornell entered negotiations as an equal. I never said or implied that the naming meant that Cornell was at worst equal. This issue of equality was never raised by me, only by the anon. Not all founders are equal. What I said was that all parties in a merger can be considered founders. The only party that may be able to lay claim to being the sole founder should be the one that forces the merged company to take the name of his company. --C S 05:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Cornell Library link makes it clear to me that saying that he "founded" Western Union is if perhaps technically a valid usage of the term, it's misleading and possibly disingenuous. In general, when you say that someone "founded" something, there is an implicit assumption that the something they founded was mostly their idea and mostly under their control. My dictionary defines found as "to establish or originate", neither of which are wholly true of the company that came to be known as Western Union. Since neither of those are true vis-a-vis Uncle Ezra and Western Union, to make the simple assertion that he "founded" it is misleading. I have reworded it to say that he was involved in the formation of Western Union and placed a reference to the article that explains his influence in more detail. Since is not undeniably obvious that "found" is the right word, it's best we avoid it, present the facts that we do have and provide the reader with pointers to more complete information. Nohat 06:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The current edited page is a good solution; I agree with most of what you say, but I disagree that "founded" has such an implicit assumption. --C S 19:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cornell Athletics

I thought it would be useful to have an athletics page at Cornell Big Red (intended to include more detailed information that wouldn't belong on this page). I put up a stub that includes a (possibly incomplete, but long) list of sports that Cornell competes in. I found an interesting page at the College Hockey Wiki; the page has a useful sidebar (which is, of course, GFDL) that would look good on a page about athletics, which includes the years of Cornell's hockey championships and could be expanded to include other sports. Does anyone know if other schools have similar Wikipedia pages on their athletic programs? Also, if you know about Cornell sports or feel motivated to find out, add any info that is relevant to Cornell Big Red. - 24.47.236.78 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Be bold and use it. It is GFDL as you note. --Xtreambar 04:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I added M&W's soccer, field hockey, softball & volleyball ivy championships. I have a friend researching national M&W's polo titles. Isn't it about time that someone adds the link to this article to the main Cornell page? Cornellrockey 14:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's linked to from Cornell University in the infobox and About Cornell section. Btm 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

There's some loose code around the page, most notably at the top above the infobar, where a law school photo was removed, and at the very bottom of the page. I didn't want to simply remove it because I thought perhaps that these were parts of design elements someone intended to implement; if their full implementation will better the page, they should be integrated, neh? Does anyone who knows wiki code want to take a crack at fixing those? JDoorjam 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Coeducation?

It's clear enough that Cornell was a pioneer in coeducation, but I'm having some problems working out exactly where it fits.

The "Cornell Women's Handbook" contains some confusing statements:

In 1870, Jennie Spencer hoisted up her skirts (to her ankles, of course) and with a sigh, trudged up the hill to Cornell's campus. As the first woman matriculate of Cornell University, Spencer played an important role in the University's history. Three years later, Emma Sheffield Eastman became the first female graduate...

Cornell and White opened the University in 1868 and in 1872 it became the first major eastern institution to admit women with men. It soon became a pioneer in establishing financial aid specifically for women.

a) The opening sentence indicates Jennie Spencer was attending in 1870, but a few paragraphs later it says that "in 1872 it became the first major eastern institution to admit women with men." The first paragraph, after mentioning 1870, says "three years later Emma Sheffield Eastman became the first female graduate." Did Eastman graduate in three years? In what year, exactly, were women first admitted?

b) If our Coeducation article is correct, the "first major eastern institution" requires some creative interpretation of "major" and "eastern." To disqualify Oberlin and Antioch, we need to define Ohio as "western" (which it arguably was at that time). We need to define Swarthmore as "not major." OK. What about Boston University (1969). I don't see how it can be regarded as other than "eastern." I know it didn't become the present-day colossus until the move to the present campus in 1949. But I'd want to see what the comparative enrollments of BU and Cornell were in 1870" ...

In any case, it seems to me best regarded as part of the vanguard of the big wave in coeducation that occurred following the Civil War, rather than trying to figure out artificial criteria by which it could be called the first. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are few separate issues here, I think. I'll take them one at a time.

Jennie Spencer was the first woman to enroll at Cornell, this was in 1870. She dropped out sometime in 1871. I believe that Emma Sheffield Eastman enrolled in 1872, having transferred from an all-womans college (I believe Vassar), and graduated in 1873. As the article on coeducation says, Cornell was coeducational at its founding (Cornell's founders agreed on this). If we are looking for a year, I think that the year would be 1870 — the year that Cornell became coeducational in practice. However, if your question was about when Cornell changed it's policy to accept women, I don't think that this happened, as there was never a policy against it. (I did read about debates among the early students once this did happen — of course those women that already were at Cornell supported the policy, while most of the men at first did not).

I don't think that people in New York, or Ohio for that matter, consider Ohio to be an Eastern state. I took a look at the article on the Midwest, which agreed with what I would call it. And as you say, in the 1870s Ohio must have been called a "Western" state (not that this matters much now).

I'm not sure about B.U., but in 1868, when Cornell opened, it had 412 students. By comparison Harvard had 529 that year.

I agree that the claim "the first major Eastern..." is a bit disingenuous. It should be noted that Cornell does not make this claim; the only place I found it was in The Cornell Women's Handbook (which was authored by undergrads in 1996 [26]) — although the university does rightly proclaim that Cornell has a prominent place in the history of coeducation in the U.S. btm 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Library

It's enough to say the library has seven million volumes. That makes it obvious that it is a big, important, first-class university library. Saying it's "among the largest" is vacuously true since nobody knows how many are included in "the largest."

In number of volumes, the Cornell library trails Harvard, Yale, University of Illinois, Berkeley, University of Texas, Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, and the University of Wisconsin, as well as six public libraries. [27].

As you'd expect from an Ivy League university, Cornell has a first-rate research library, but Cornell's library is not a notable, distinguishing features that sets Cornell apart from other major universities. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with your last paragraph there. Since when is being in the top 12 academic research libraries, not notable? Despite your strange claim, it DOES set Cornell apart (especially among most of its peers of the Ancient Eight). What, it has to be #1 to be notable?

I'd like at least see it finishing in the money, not an also-ran. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's standard practice in the Ivy League to compete only with our "peers" when it is advantageous.  :-) --C S (Talk) 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, number of volumes is never used as the sole determining metric by people who judge these things. In particular, comparing academic research libraries to public libraries is egregious. The focus is different. You're not likely to find Curious George in a Cornell library, but you will find Hamilton's book on the Quaternions.

The fact is, Cornell's library system is pretty distinguished, even among the Ivy League. For one, I've oft heard from librarians and some of the knowledgable math faculty that Cornell's mathematics library is one of the best in the U.S., ahead of some of the schools you name such as Harvard, Yale, UWisc, etc.

I didn't know that about Cornell's math library. Find something citable about it, and I'd say that's much more interesting than having a library almost as big as UCLA's. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try, but I suspect I'll have to dig around offline, which means it might not be for a long time. --C S (Talk) 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I also know from experience that the UCLA and UWisc math collections are dismal compared to Cornell's (even together they would not really compare because of redundancy). The point? Particularly for research, what needs to be examined is special collections. There are other distinguished subsets of books besides the mathematics collection. These should be sourced of course. --C S (Talk) 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I betcha a nickel you can find Curious George in the Cornell Library. I'd frankly be astonished if you couldn't. And I betcha a nickel I can find Hamilton's book on Quaternions in the Boston Public Library. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The original edition of Hamilton's book? I doubt it. But hey, it was just an example, and doesn't invalidate my point. --C S (Talk) 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: just saying 7 million doesn't really inform the reader. Most readers don't have an idea of the magnitude of these things. Thus, a better statement is to refine the number and say "making it one of the 12..." etc., which I will do shortly. --C S (Talk) 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

On an unimporant note, a quick look-up on the Cornell library system says that Cornell has at least five copies of Curious George. --Xtreambar 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Thanks for all this research, but I'm guessing this is tacit agreement with my point? --C S (Talk) 02:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found Curious George in the Cornell library. In fact, I found four copies. In the Uris library, call number PZ10.3.R45 C9 1969. (Also, Curious George gets a medal and Curious George learns the alphabet.) Oops, you found five? I guess I must have missed one. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No luck on "Lectures on Quaternions" in the BPL, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

let's call the bet off then. --C S (Talk) 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Actually I don't recall your accepting it. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the Curious George thread seems to be of most interest here:

1) Cornell has four different titles of Curious George (I believe all of these are by the original authors), including two different editions of the original Curious George. Cornell has four copies of the older edition and one copy of the newer.

2)There are seven Curious George titles by the original authors (Reys) and many more afterward, so Cornell has one of the worst (incomplete) Curious George collections in the U.S. Feel free to add that to the article, if you wish :-)

--C S (Talk) 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Detroit Public Library has Elements of Quaternions, 2d ed, William Rowan Hamilton, Ed. by Charles Jasper Joly. (1901). (Plus, of course, lots more Curious George than Cornell. Jorge el Curioso... and of course... (wait for it...)

"Margret & H.A. Rey's Curious George visits the library." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It kind of makes sense. Elements is supposed to be an improved, more readable version of Lectures. We really should mention the Curious George thing in the article....:-) --C S (Talk) 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was thrilling. Cornell does have a bunch of special collections, including the math library, but also the second-largest ag library in the country, the music library, with 50,000 audio recordings, the engineering library, with 8 copies of "Curious George Constructs A Cyborg," etc. Let's just dig up some really good, concise stats, eh? If this goes on any longer, I might just snap and call a Cornell librarian myself! ;-) JDoorjam 05:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, mention the choice bits, the things about the Cornell library system that characterize it and distinguish it from other libraries, not meaningless braggadocio about where it ranks or its being "among the biggest." Rather than statistics, what I'd like to see is source citations of believable people saying relevant things about what makes Cornell's library special. First to let undergraduates borrow books? Yeah, that's interesting. And of course any weaknesses should be mentioned as well. (But, no, I don't think it's necessary to document deficiencies in its Curious George holdings).

BTW how does Cornell's mathematics library compare with Brown's? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know. Why do you ask? --C S (Talk) 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorta embarrassed to say, but, OK... I did a Google search (blush) on exact phrase ["best mathematics library"] and Brown came up twice, but both with regard to its standing in the 1930s. Then there's one in London, one in Taiwan, and a rather frank statement by Notre Dame's mathematics library that one of their goals is that "We want them to think we are the best mathematics library they know of." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is probably much more easily researched by people at Cornell right now, but here are some things to get started. I believe the Civil War related collections are notable; see [28] for an article that talks about it (including mention of "...one of five known copies of the Gettysburg address written and signed by Lincoln himself."). Also the Witchcraft collection, which can be viewed online at [29]. Note that this digitized collection is part of an ongoing project by Cornell and others (see [30] for more interesting digital collections such as the Samuel May anti-slavery collection).

These digital library initiatives are probably notable. The fact that arXiv is hosted at Cornell should be mentioned to, as it can be considered part of Cornell's efforts.

Cornell also won the ACRL Excellence in Academic Libraries Award [31]; I don't know how notable this is.

--C S (Talk) 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Personally? I think the Civil War and witchcraft collections, assuming they really are major, are interesting. arXiv being hosted at Cornell is interesting. I'd say skip the award unless someone who knows confirms that it's a big deal. And that Cornell wins it consistently. Well, now that I read the article it seems clear that the intention is to honor three different libraries every year, so if I'm reading it correctly, did you open the pdf of the ad? It just sounds like it's sort of boosting libraries generally, and that winning the award is sort of like being Employee-of-the-Month. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is worth mentioning in this article, and it's already mentioned in Cornell Lab of Ornithology, but it's interesting nonetheless: Cornell has the largest collection of animal sounds in the world, which are in the process of being digitized and put online. There was an article about it recently. btm 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

INCLUDING recordings suspected to be the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. JDoorjam 13:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like something interesting, significant, and Cornell-specific to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha! The BPL does have "Lectures on Quarternions"

I said:

I betcha a nickel you can find Curious George in the Cornell Library. I'd frankly be astonished if you couldn't. And I betcha a nickel I can find Hamilton's book on Quaternions in the Boston Public Library.

While nobody took me up on these bets, it was quickly established that the Cornell library system indeed has Curious George. Now, the BPL's online catalog does not cover the research library or the rare books, so I sent in an email query and received this reply:

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your recent inquiry. According to our catalog, we hold one copy of Lectures on Quaternions, by William Rowan Hamilton.

The card catalog information is below:

Lectures on Quaternions, containing a systematic statement of a new mathematical system. With illustrated diagrams and some geometrical and physical applications.

Dublin, Hodges & Smith, 1853.

Big libraries are amazing, just amazing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

They were Republicans

A.D. and Ezra were followers of the Elephant, and we were idiots for not realizing that the Republican Party was the dominant party in the North after the Civil War. I cannot believe how long it said that Uncle Andy and Uncle Ezra were Democrats. JDoorjam 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

DDR Club

No talk of the DDR Club and its accompanying documentaries?

"A number comparable to the total populations of other Ivy League institutions."

I'm snipping the last phrase in the sentence

Current undergraduate enrollment is now over 13,500, the largest of any Ivy League university, and almost 20,300 total students including graduate and professional students in Ithaca and medical students at the New York City campus, a number comparable to the total populations of other Ivy League institutions.

simply because I cannot figure out what it's supposed to mean. And therefore can't figure out how to verify it. It could mean that Cornell's enrollment is about the same as that of the other seven Ivies combined... but I don't believe that. Our article on Penn says "10,000 undergraduates, 9000 graduates," and, well, Harvard and Yale and Princeton must have a few thousand each.

Does it mean that the New York City campus alone is comparable in enrollment to the total enrollment of other Ivies? I don't believe that either.

Does it just mean that Cornell's total enrollment is comparable to the total enrollment at other Ivies? That hardly seems worthy of mentioning...

Just baffled. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't slog through the edit history and nobody's left a meaningful edit comment. Maybe this is supposed to mean that, compared to (e.g) Penn, Cornell is about the same size but has a larger undergraduate enrollment and a smaller graduate enrollment? Of course, I'm still not sure what the point is, since Dartmouth has 4,200 undergraduates out of a total of enrollment of 5,744 which would make Dartmouth about 3/4 undergraduate compared to Cornell being 2/3 undergraduate. So it's not as if Cornell were "the most undergraduate-focussed Ivy." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I'd seen that and meant to snip it out but got distracted by something. There is no possible meaning that is both accurate and relevant, and most that you've called out seem to be neither. So long as the full population is mentioned in the article, the "comparable (etc.)" passage, misleading at best, can go, IMHO. JDoorjam 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of changes/what should Cornell University include?

I see a bunch of places where this page still has room for some significant improvement. Also, there seem to be a few issues (like rankings) that are issues both here and on other university pages that I think would be good to discuss in further detail. Hopefully, there will be some sort of consensus or compromise, as these things are these are probably the least stable parts of the article and are likely to be modified so that they more or less amount to boosterism.

I have rewritten the article in a way that addresses most of the things that I think are wrong with it here (currently no pictures; references are in HTML comments; recent changes to Cornell University not yet incorporated). I expanded the history section quite a bit. I think Xtreambar did a really nice job by adding a significant History section to the article (which was sorely needed) and I've expanded it because I think history is one of the major things an encyclopedia article should capture about a subject and that, in particular, Cornell's past says a lot about how it operates today and how it has had a significant influence on other institutions.

The other proposed changes and topics for discussion are below in their own subsection, so that's it's easier to respond to and to follow the conversation as it develops. btm 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section should really be more of an overview. As Wikipedia:Lead section says, "the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Other than mentioning that Cornell is in Ithaca and that it's an Ivy League school, it just reads too much like a list of too-specific facts that doesn't really tell readers the main information they would be looking for from an encyclopedia entry.

It's also interesting to note that "for the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone." btm 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this approach. I like the lead you created in User:Btm/Sandbox/Cornell_University. Rather than list an assortment of facts about size, Far Above Cayuga's Water, and the Hotel school, you've managed to pinpoint the essentials distinguishing Cornell from other Ivies. I think we should just zap the whole beginning, replace it with Btm's lead, and start editing from there. --C S (Talk) 13:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of rankings

Personally, I think that the methodologies used in the various rankings are too varied and subjective to really say much about how one university does relative to another. And the rank itself does not tell you much about an institution — it's just a factoid that a lot of people are quite interested in because they care about those subjective things like reputation and prestige. Also, the Wikipedian crowd that says that rankings are often abused is right: people tend to pick and choose those rankings in which their school does best; the selection should be as neutral as possible. I agree with C S that if we use just one it should be the most prominent, U.S. News, but I think it would be better to remove all rankings from the top of the article, as per Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, and to include all of the major published rankings, including the ones with a worldwide scope, somewhere lower in the article, so that readers get the whole rankings picture. btm 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rankings don't belong in the introductory paragraph, period. When it comes to general chest-beating assertions of bestestness, one is more than enough, but I'll grant the one, probably the U. S. News and World Report overall. Please, no boosterish "spin" like "According to US News and World Report's annual ranking of US colleges, MIT is one of five universities to consistently receive the highest peer assessment score of 4.9/5.0, along with Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton;" just a simple statement like "In 2006 MIT ranked seventh (tied with Caltech) in the U. S. News rankings of the national top colleges."

Meaningful, objective, Cornell-specific superlatives such as being the biggest undergraduate school in the Ivy League, OK, if it's a case where Cornell is really in a different class from other schools, not where it just happened to edge out a rival by a small margin.

Generally speaking, mention rankings that are not first, second, or third are highly suspect. So are highly qualified rankings (Oldest Jesuit-run coeducational private school in continuous operation west of the Mississippi...).

Rankings are much more meaningful when the school is a) first, and b) first by a large margin so that it is truly in a different class from others. Of course, in such a case, rankings aren't really needed. There's no need to mention how Cornell's hotel school ranks, for example. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Speculative sections

In my opinion, the "Suicide" section and "Big Red Box" paragraph are not significant enough for inclusion in the article. The suicide section reads like it admits to being speculation and hearsay. The only verifiable facts that I can spot are the number of suicides per year and that "Cornell is involved in a collaboration with the Jed Foundation" — neither of these are significant enough to be included in the article.

The section on the logo debate reads like it was written by someone on the ad-hoc committee (i.e., it’s POV): it gives a lot of credit to the committee; it makes claims about the university's administration paying more attention to doing well in rankings that may not be true (especially now that Lehman resigned); and it implies that shifting resources and priorities to improve in the rankings is necessarily a good thing. Is the logo debate important enough to be included in this article? btm 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the Big Red Box thing. I boldly removed it. JDoorjam 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How about chopping up / reworking the "Suicide" section and putting it under the Cornell Legends section of Cornelliana?--Xtreambar 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That would work for me. As I said above, its really not relevant enough for the main article, and, in my opinion, it's just doesn't have enough factual content in current form. The old Big Red Box section could also have a place in Cornelliana, but could also use a rewrite from how it looked before. btm 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Public/Private

I stumbled across a question regarding Cornell University's relationship with New York State on another talk page. The university itself is private but some of its divisions are public. So students at the school of agriculture pay a state university tuition and New York State residents have an advantage when seeking admission. Students at the school of arts and sciences pay the more expensive private university tuition and New York State residents have no advantage when seeking admission. The university publishes a complete list of which divisions exist under which of these two status classifications. Durova 18:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The university is private, and all of its divisions are private, though three undergraduate units and one graduate unit are "statutory" colleges, meaning that, by authorization of a statute (and not that they are state colleges), they get funding from NY. I still haven't seen it documented anywhere that NYS students get preferential admissions in the contract units, though it wouldn't surprise me. (That talk page, incidentally, wouldn't have been this one, would it?) Cheers,JDoorjam 00:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Rankings again

I just moved a remark about Cornell's being 12th in a ranking of world universities from the lead paragraph to the "reputation" section, because every university has a rank, and this doesn't tell us anything that is particularly unique about or characteristic of Cornell. (Naturally, the juxtaposition of one source's opinion that it ranks 13th in the U. S. with another's opinion that it ranks 12th in the world should raise some eyebrows as to the reliability or meaningfulness of either ranking...).

Cornell's School of Hotel Administration, now that's something that deserves mention in the lead section. I think a little digging might warrant calling that a first, best, and (at least within the Ivy League) only—or something darn close to it... meaning, of course, no disrespect to University of Nevada at Las Vegas or [www.cfs.purdue.edu/htm Purdue] Dpbsmith (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And that it was founded in large part due to the efforts of Professors Statler and Waldorf, who were immortalized as the cranky old hecklers in The Muppet Show. I'll dig around for a citation about that. JDoorjam 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

????? Whoa! I assumed the Muppets were just named after the hotels... were the hotels named after the professors... or were the hotels named for owners/innkeepers who then became professors... You're suggesting those Muppets actually bear a physical resemblance to Messrs/Professors Statler and Hilton? Wow... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Or taking you too literally. Though George Boldt (not "Waldorf") and Ellsworth M. Statler were evidently important Cornell donors. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) This picture of Statler doesn't look very Muppetesque, although obviously it was taken when he was younger... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New York Times, Jan 22, 1922, p. 33: "Hotel Men Approve Cornell Training: Hope Legislature Will Appropriate $11,000 a Year for Educating Help. New York City hotel men are optimistic with regard to the possibility of the hotel course which has been under consideration at Cornell University for several months. L. M. Boomer of the Du Pont-Boomer Hotels, George M. Sweeney of the Hotel Commodore, and Edward M. Tierney of the Hotel Ansonia were the New York representatives who appeared before the Budget Committee in Albany.... 'There is a death of competent hotel employes [sic], and such a course at Cornell would have the endorsement and co-operation of the hotel men generally throughout the country, and might later be adopted by other big universities,' said Mr. Boomer. 'The war brought a great change in the hotel worker, and the old-time attitude of servility has been replaced by efficient service giving and courtesy. Young men now enter the hotel business just as they would banking, railroad, or commercial life, to find a future in it, and the hotel man must offer the same attractions of commensurate pay and advancement.'" No Statlers or Boldts mentioned.... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this saddens me. This had been one of the rumors that floats around the Hill, prevalent enough that I had always assumed if I just bothered to look it up it would be verified.... Alas. I'll keep searching for a link, more for my wounded sense of alumnus pride than an actual expectation of finding reliable documentation. A good lesson about the importance of citing facts though, eh? JDoorjam 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Partial redemption. And incidentally, he definitely sounds like a cranky old man to me. Sadly, it looks as though Waldorf was probably just... Waldorf. JDoorjam 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems as if the school was almost the personal creation of Howard B. Meek... certainly got a huge boost from Statler... I love that quote, "I'm converted. Meek can have any damn thing he wants." And "Waldorf" Boldt contributed a dorm, Boldt Tower, which I assume still exists? But no apparent Muppet connection. Jim Henson attended University of Maryland, so he'd have no obvious reason to memorialize any obscure bit of Cornellian lore. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree. I must sadly conclude that it seems the evolution of myth is rather easy to track here: "The muppet 'Statler' is named for the Statler hotel chain, who paid for Cornell's Statler" becomes "The muppet is named after a founder of Cornell's hotel school" becomes "both muppets are named after Cornellians." Ah well, at least I have another piece of trivia for you: Cornell awarded the first Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine, which was awarded to Elmer Salmon... after whom Salmonella is named. Now you can be a cool kid at all the parties and pronounce it properly: "Sa-monella."

Ah, somehow I forgot that you'll probably want a reference for that (especially as I just discovered Wikipedia's article on the man didn't even have that information). Well, to quote Plato, BAM! (No, I don't have a source for Plato saying that.) JDoorjam 21:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

Perhaps I'm deluding myself here, but it seems the article now has some hope of approaching at least near FA status. This is thanks mainly to Btm and Xtreambar; I don't wish to downplay others' roles here, but Btm has certainly created not only a great lead, but built on Xtreambar's excellent work. It would be good to get some comments from others so we can polish up this article. I also suggest moving most of the talk stuff to an archive, except for stuff relevant to the recent revamping, so that outside editors will find things readable.

Oh, and I wondered for a bit if it was wise to try and make an article on one's alma mater a featured article...but then I realized that it's one more good article and if it encourages others to make FAs out of their probably crappy school article, that's for the best! --C S (Talk) 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cal is looking to be an FA too.... This might start an avalanche of college FA nominations. Ah well. I wholly concur with Chan-Ho -- Xtreambar, Btm, you guys have done great stuff on this page. User:Dpbsmith also has been pretty good at peer review for de-puffery on this and other pages, a very important step in making a really good higher ed article. There's probably a bit more scrubbing to do, but I think she's pretty hot. JDoorjam 16:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley is looking pretty good, but quality lessens toward the end; I think those problems will be straightened out eventually. What's surprising to me is that University_of_Michigan is an FA, but I would say its lead is not so good, much worse than Berkeley's. Go figure. It may be there are a number of UoM supporters. In any case, I would caution against putting Cornell as a candidate too early; it would be best to have the article pass with flying colors, rather than barely make the hurdle. I think the first stage after some scrubbing (with which I will help out) is to offer the article for comments...I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. --C S (Talk) 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

May I express regret that two truly unique Cornell features, its alma mater song and its hotel school, are no longer mentioned in the lead. I don't know why they were removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing they were not in Btm's version of the lead (which was cut and pasted in by Xtreambar) because Btm did not consider them, at least at the time, as being noteworthy enough to mention in addition to Cornell's motto and reasons for founding. I have to agree with this decision. While the story of the alma mater song is interesting, I don't see why it warrants such notice. And I don't think the hotel school should be one of the few things mentioned right away. While you and others may think "Hotel school" when Cornell is mentioned, others do not, probably because in Cornell's distinguished history, there are other things that come to mind, like its historical role as a leader in physics and its reputation as an engineering school. None of these things deserve to be upheld before the others. --C S (Talk) 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have to disagree with you about the Hotel School. I think a one-liner might be appropriate, right about here:

"... offering well over 5,000 courses. Cornell University's Hotel School is "without a doubt, the best hospitality school in the history of human civilization." [32] Cornell is also a leader in research..."

Ok, so the actual language used will have to be a little more neutral. But you get the idea. JDoorjam 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing is that I'm having great difficulty telling if you are joking or not. I did get a good chuckle though. With the reference and all. --C S (Talk) 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chan-Ho's assessment on this one, and I'll add a few comments of my own. The Hotel School is an important part of Cornell, it is near-unique and is almost certainly the leader in its field, but I'd argue that three of Cornell's seven undergraduate colleges meet these criteria and one other comes close. The three that I believe meet the criteria are: ILR, the College of Human Ecology and the Hotel School. CALS comes close. At the same time, the College of Engineering probably leads the Ivy League among engineering programs and AAP has its own distinguished history[33]. And, unlike the other colleges, A&S is considered to be as old as the university itself; it also has the broadest scope. I find it hard to single out one of the colleges and find it hard to say that one is of significanly more consquence to the outside world than the others.

With respect to the alma mater, I agree that it is one of the more well known (if not the best known) alma maters, but I doubt that the percentage of people (let's say of all Americans) who associate the tune with Cornell would be well above 1%. Also, while the Hotel School is of general interest, I see Cornell's alma mater (and alma maters in general) primarily as a song that celebrates the institution within its community. So, I agree that they're very interesting, but don't think they meet the high bar for lead section inclusion. btm 06:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the lead section should contain things about the school that really are unique about that school. Unique history, unique facilities, unique accomplishments. I don't know whether the school of engineering should be mentioned in the lead paragraph or not. It probably should. I agree that it is almost certainly the best engineering school in the Ivy League. But isn't that a little bit like saying MIT's Sloan School is the best business school of any "technology" or "polytechnic" university? After years of insisting that it was had merely a Division of Applied Science, Harvard finally acknowledges that it has an engineering school... at this point, probably every member of Ivy League has an engineering school. But only one of them has an hotel school. The hotel school is muchly more uniquer-er than the engineering school.

The thing that is interesting about Cornell's alma mater song that makes it different from others is that indeed alma maters in general do celebrate the institution within its community, and therefore are barely known outside that community. That's the point. I know that Harvard's alma mater is called "Fair Harvard" and is sung to the tune of, I think, "Those Endearing Young Charms" but I don't know the tune or the words and would not recognize it if I heard it. I don't know the name or tune of Yale's, Columbia's, Brown's, Penn's, whatever. I know "On Wisconsin" but I don't know the University of Wisconsin's alma mater, and I attended the place. But I know Cornell's. And not by way of any alumnus. It's in the folkways, and I suspect that an informal poll of non-Cornell-alumni would quickly show that I am not unique. I'll bet you can hum the opening bars a quarter of the people you hum it to will say "Far above Cayuga's waters." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree: the lead should include things that are unique about Cornell. And the Hotel School is unique. But what is really unique about the Hotel School, and is common to many of Cornell's colleges, is its pedigree. By this I mean, a pedigree of bringing together students and faculty in fields where few other such places for the field exist. This is still true of the Hotel School, ILR and Human Ecology. It was true about Engineering and Architecture in earlier times. So, the Hotel School is an excellent example of a larger, more important, unique Cornell quality. btm 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be interesting if you could find a well-sourced pithy quote to that effect. One of the things I regret about our university articles is that for the most part they do not succeed very well in documenting or explaining differences in the academic culture of different schools. (Of course, it's not easy to find people who are really in a good position to make such comparisons...). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if you look at what Btm and I wrote, you'll see we're not arguing that the song and hotel school are not unique. Rather, we're saying it's one of a dozen other unique things. Why do they in particular need to be named? While in your mind, Cornell is highly associated with hotel administration and its alma mater, that's certainly not the case for me. --C S (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you associated with Cornell? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, your user page says you're class of 2001. So, you probably have a different view of Cornell than an outsider like myself might. The article should reflect an insider's knowledge but should not necessarily view the school through carnelian-tinted glasses. Ask some of your UC Davis colleagues to name the three most salient things about Cornell and see what they come up with. That's not rhetorical, that's an actual suggestion. I'll bet you a nickel at even money that at least one of them responds by singing the opening phrase of "Far Above Cayuga's Waters." (And I'll bet another nickel that not one of them can sing "Hail to California, Alma Mater dear," unless they attended Davis as an undergraduate... and maybe even not then). Trivial? Sure, but.... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, is this line of questioning really what you want to do? I would argue that I have reasonably tinted glasses and not a very "Far Above Cayuga's Water" tinted ones (which you may have from working on that said article). This may surprise you Dpbsmith, but I do not live in a vacuum, which is basically what your comments imply. I have had plenty of opportunity to discuss Cornell with others, and almost completely, most people do not know anything about Cornell's alma mater. In fact, in my experience, only a small subset of people, know about the song and these people are almost exclusively Ivy-connected in some way, e.g. friends or relative go to an Ivy. Rather than continue in this fashion, perhaps you should address the concerns that have been raised. --C S (Talk) 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::BTW, I will answer your question. When I am asked what school I went to, and my "colleagues" hear I'm from Cornell, which I take to mean other mathematicians and scientist types, the conversation does not turn to the hotel school or the alma mater. In fact, only one person I know here knows the melody at all and she went to MIT and all her friends are basically Harvard, MIT, or some Ivy. She also did some research at Cornell as a visiting student; she also, "coincidentally", happens to be a big fan of a capella and Cornell chimes. You would win your bet, but I hope you realize you've won little else. --C S (Talk) 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I excluded one person who is a Cornellian; he may or may not know. Surprising as it is, when two Cornellians meet, they don't always spend all their time discussing Cornell or whether they know the alma mater. --C S (Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I've been unreasonably annoying. I did ask a question and I was interested in hearing the answer. As to what should go in the lead paragraph, I've taken my shot at convincing you and failed. Mostly likely that would be because I'm wrong. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As another Wikipedian with carnelian Ray-Bans, I have to say that I knew way too many Cornellians who didn't, and don't, know the alma mater. With that said, I've met many, many alumni who snap to attention when they hear it. I think it might be a generational issue as much as a Cornellian/non-Cornellian issue....

See, now you can both agree to disagree with me.  ;-) JDoorjam 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cornell" redirect/disambig

Given the number of other things called Cornell, not the least of which is another institution of higher education, "Cornell" should lead to the Cornell (disambiguation), in my opinion. 24.63.125.223 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that the vast, vast majority of people who would search for "Cornell" in wikipedia are looking for Cornell University. JDoorjam 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but I'm sure many people (perhaps even a "vast, vast majority of people") who are not familiar with them would also confuse the two institutions, thinking that Cornell College and Cornell University are related (as Harvard College is the undergraduate division of Harvard University). 24.63.125.223 17:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Only once in my many edits have I found a misdirect of "Cornell" to "Cornell University" when the link should have gone to "Cornell College". --Xtreambar 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but not all Wikipedia readers are informed editors who know the distinction between the two.24.63.125.223 17:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of Wiki users who will come to this page seeking Cornell College is simply far too slight to have a link to Cornell College at the top of the CU page. JDoorjam 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Let me try to explain it another way: the number of Wiki users who visit the Georgetown University page, seeking Georgetown College or the University of Georgetown is probably slight as well. Nonetheless, the clarifications at the top of those articles adds useful information that is relevant to the article, regardless of a user's intended destination. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry is to expand knowledge and such clarifications help in that regard. 24.63.125.223 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

End note numbering

Any idea why the endowment, and every subsequent piece of information with an endnote, has an endnote reference number that's 2 higher than the actual number of the endnote? The endowment is listed as endnote #3 but at the bottom it's #1. JDoorjam 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I changed the page with a workaround. It's a bug either in the ref template (there's a discussion here: Template_talk:Ref#.7B.7Bref.7D.7D_in_image_caption_messes_up_numbering) or possibly even in the MediaWiki software. Actually, I suspect it's the latter, maybe I'll look into if there's are any related bugs filed for this. The only workaround I know of is to avoid using {{ref}}s outside of the main text (i.e., in infoboxes, image captions, etc.). It may also be necessary to override the automatically generated counter for external links. btm 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture request

Does anyone have a picture of a good color picture of Sage Hall that they could upload for the Sage Residential College article that I just whipped up? Also, go take a look over there. Now all the former, current, and future residental colleges at Cornell have pages. That was a pet project of mine. Well, not all if you consider "Ujamma Residential College" to really be a residential college. Thought it is in name, I do not believe that it is by the definition of a residential college -- essentially, a residential college needs to be self-sufficient and thus, must have its own dining hall and other like accomedations that set it appart from a traditional dormitory.--Xtreambar 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I found an old black and white one that I was planning on uploading to the Wikimedia Commons; can't help on a color version right now. It would be best if we put all of the public domain pictures we are using over to the Commons, so that they can be used by people editing articles in other languages and on other projects.

I think a general housing article would be a good addition (Dartmouth College residential communities is an example), but I'm not sure if that still interests you. I know you've given thought to that in the past and I think it would be the best place to capture the major changes that Cornell has seen in its housing recently. btm 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)