Talk:Cornell University/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Cornell University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Boosterism removal

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

These are examples of academic boosterism.

Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.

Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.

The claims make conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources used, and include weasels and puffery. On Wikipedia, claims should be fully substantiated and stated simply and neutrally.
Despite clearly noting this issue in the edit history, Johnny Squeaky is insistent on keeping these claims. The only argument he has offered in support for keeping them is that he believes they are true, which is irrelevant to the issue. --Coolbb (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a little far. The comments are no different than on many university wiki articles. As "boosterism", it's exceptionally tame, *IF* it even qualifies as that.

Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.

This is a factual statement.

Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.

This, too, is a factual statement. References can be found, but until then, maybe I'll add the ^{[citation needed]} template. I mean seriously, simply because a ref needs to be found has exactly zip to do with "boosterism", and these statement hardly qualify if at all. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentences don't really add much value to the encyclopedia, and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism invites us to "assert facts, not opinions" and to "avoid vague terms of praise" in pursuit of establishing a NPOV. Saying the university "is usually ranked" well is weak prose, as is saying "many of Cornell's schools" rank well [emphasis added using italics]. —Eustress ^talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First, there are many short sentences in many Wiki articles that "really don't add much", which is clearly a subjective statement in any case. However...

Saying that something us "usually ranked..." at a certain level is not a random opinion. Likewise, pointing out that Cornell's various colleges/departments are consistently ranked at a certain level is not a random opinion, but rather a statement of something that exists as a fact or in this case some type of ranking or evaluation by a known and respected publication or organization that does such rankings. All that is missing is a proper reference, which can almost certainly be found. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This game of parroting rankings to the point of undue influence within the article (above and beyond the fact they're statistical abstractions that are trivially gamed) and introducing peacock words into the article ignores the desperate need for attention to other glaring holes in the article. For instance, is there an undergraduate core curriculum that students take, or do they simply learn whatever's ranked highly in a magazine? I'm of the opinion the ranking section could be removed in its entirety and the quality of the article would actually be improved. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your view is classic POV. Rankings are a matter of public record just like every other subjective thing at Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you have a personal problem with Ivy League schools, that's your issue. I attended the University of Oregon, a public school. But I'm not carrying any chips about those more fortunate than I who went to the "snooty" schools, and your issues have no relevance here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! "Yawn"??? Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough. You've both made your points now move on. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If those statements are supported by sources or are summaries of slightly longer, well-sourced sections then they're fine. If they're unsourced then they are indeed very minor forms of puffery but only because they're unsourced (in which case they can be removed on that basis without even bothering to decide if it's puffery, POV, etc.). ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you posting under more than one account? =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an unwarranted personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's make this clear, since Johnny Squeaky claims there is no consensus for the changes. Coolbb, Eustress, Madcoverboy, ElKevbo, and now Drmies agree that the "boosterism" should be removed. On the opposite side, there's Johnny Squeaky. How much more consensus can one ask for? In addition, I am reverting Johnny Squeaky's revert of another edit of mine, where they reinstated a bunch of chit-chat about Tae Kwan Do and broomstick polo, sourced to some campus profile and the website of some local club: the text is chatty, the references are not reliable (enough to establish notability) or independent--and there is a main article where such minor things could conceivably be reported. In all, I think there's evidence enough of disruptive editing and edit-warring, probably enough to establish POV editing. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Template of faculty

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, i tried, but i dont have a cropping tool that works here. If someone wants to fix the image, great. if someone wants to remove it for aesthetic purposes, i will understand, but i do request that they make an effort to fix the image eventually. facts trump style here, and Carl Sagan is easily a more notable face of Cornell than John Cleese.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Record text

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I recently undid an expansion of information about the university's environmental records (see diff) since I believe this expansion violates WP:UNDUE, offering too much coverage of the issue on this main uni article. Such detail might more appropriately belong in one of the Cornell campus articles, or a few important details might be able to be integrated into the current body. Regards. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not information. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The publishing of information in an encyclopedia article itself is a viewpoint or a propagation of a viewpoint that the information is of such importance and interest that it is essential to understanding the subject of the article. Another way to put this is that it is necessary but not sufficient that information be published in reliable sources; we must also have assurances that the information is sufficiently important and interesting (akin to notability but not quite the same as that applies to article subjects and not content in an article).

That is a very convoluted way of saying: Just because it's published in a reliable source doesn't mean we have to include it in an article. It's gotta be important, too.

(I'm very glad you brought this up, Eustress; I've become increasingly uncomfortable with how environmental sustainability information has been and is being added to U.S. college and university articles as it feels like Wikipedia is being used to promote the views of a very vocal minority who believe that environmental sustainability is a topic of overriding importance in these articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(A recent edit linked to this external webpage documenting a push by Campus Climate Challenge to add this kind of material to Wikipedia articles about U.S. colleges and universities. As far as advocacy organizations using Wikipedia to promote their cause, it's well done with good recommendations on what and what not to do here. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC))

Following up on our discussion over here, we did attempt to slow things down a bit, and specifically encouraged students we're talking to keep their contributions concise and keep the overall context of the article in mind. Some could probably use more editing. Still very open to advice from folks here, on how we can best guide students to participate in this community in a constructive way. JeffM2001 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted drastic edits to this article, which were implemented without community consensus. I encourage editors to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD to learn about the editing process here on Wikipedia if they are not familiar with them. If editors continue to try to force content into this high-visibility and long-standing article, it may be necessary to request intervention of an uninvolved administrator. However, allow me to explain further my objection to the drastic change and the need I see for a community discussion.

I agree there is a need to improve the article's coverage of the university's environmental impact. However, the proposed changes (see diff) introduced several other problems:

The information belongs under the Campuses:Ithaca section, not under Academics, since it only really covers impact of the Ithaca campus -- if content about other campuses were mentioned, it would probably best fall under the appropriate campus subsection, but definitely not under Academics, unless the information has to do with Cornell curricula on environmental issues
The proposed text violated WP:OR by presenting a synthesis of research about fracking in order to advance a certain viewpoint
The proposed text presented unverified information (e.g., Black Oak Wind Farm) and had an inoperable link to a Forbes article by Skorton
The proposed text was unnecessarily wordy and broke out small paragraphs into several subsections, when Wikipedia strives for succinctness
The proposed text referenced a decline in Cornell's performance in the STARS review, a statement which again had no explicit backing from reliable sources
The proposed text mentions an unnotable vote on fossil fuels (covered in Cornell Daily Sun) and then an irrelevant mention of efforts at Yale, which is also not supported by reliable sources

The current coverage of environmental issues in this article is not perfect, but the proposed changes only seemed to make issues worse (à la WP:UNDUE). I would encourage interested editors to build upon the current text -- not wholly replace it -- and to propose notable strings of information one-by-one here for the community's approval. Several editors are active on this page and happy to collaborate. Cheers. —Eustress ^talk 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking through that detailed list Eustress. Very helpful! I'm not the author of this section, but as someone who works with Energy Action Coalition/Campus Climate Challenge, I followed up with the student who did write it and encouraged her to jump into the conversation and collaborate with the editors here to hopefully reach an outcome that works for everyone. She said she could work on it tomorrow. If I can ask a favor, would you mind taking a look at the toolkit we have here and let us know if there are ways we can improve it so that students who want to engage with this community can do so as constructively as possible? Thanks! JeffM2001 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. For a high-level discussion on this, I've initiated a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Campus_Climate_Challenge. Regarding this particular article, I don't think a stand-alone section dedicated to Environmental Record is merited. If the student, or anyone, wishes to try to re-add any of the purported facts alluded to above, I suggest proposing them here one at a time with supporting sources so experienced editors can assist with copy editing. Cheers. —Eustress ^talk 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the work of contributors, Eustress should have productively edited it. But then, if this is the impression that admins now want to give new contributors of Wikipedia -- that their valid, accurate, well-cited work will be summarily deleted, and re-deleted on the summary judgment of a single gatekeeper, then they're welcome to it. Eustress' understanding of "the community" is quite troubling. --The Cunctator (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable response to a coordinated campaign to push an agenda in this encyclopedia. Your incessant smears and agitation are growing wearisome. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Cunctator -- campaign aside, this article in focus -- I'm trying to first allow time for the original author to come back and to collaborate with us here. Do you believe any of the proposed text should be integrated in the article? If so, why? I think the editors here are a reasonable bunch, eager to assist newcomers. But for a newcomer to make major changes to an established article without discussion and expect it to stick -- for it to be written in such a way that adheres to guidelines and gels with the rest of the article right off the bat -- is a bit unrealistic. As Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Major_edits states, "All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page.... A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." Regards. —Eustress ^talk 19:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am the original author of the edits. I am very open to your advice on how to make it the post better. I think the main things I would like to remain in the articles is the information on the endowment and our investments. Divestment from fossil fuels is being actively discussed and debated on campus. For the sustainability section of this article to be comprehensive I believe that information on where the endowment is invested should be included. I am very new to wikipedia but I would love to learn how to actively and constructively contribute! How does this edit look? (see below) Tydtsgch34 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cornell has an endowment of over $5 billion.^[1] The University does not disclose the details of its investments however it is known that it invests a significant portion of its endowment in the energy sector, thus profitting from coal, oil, and shale-gas extraction. Cornell received a 0.41 / 9.00 on the STARS review for Positive Sustainability Investments, a decline from previous years^[2] . Students are currently calling for divestment of the university endowment from fossil fuels by 2020, passing a student government resolution with a vote of 22-2 ^[3] . However the university has indicated that it does not plan to divest ^[4]. Cornell currently has $60 million invested in alternative energy, sustainable forestry and environmental credit investments^[5]

^ Doolittle, Nancy. "Endowment return positive in FY2012". Ezra Magazine.
^ https://stars.aashe.org/institutions/cornell-university-ny/report/2013-03-08/12/56/404/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Augenstein, Erica. "Student Assembly Urges Cornell to Divest From Fossil Fuels". Cornell Sun.
^ http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2013/04/05/skorton-cornell-will-not-divest-%E2%80%98immediate%E2%80%99-future. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://cornellsun.com/node/56170. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Thanks, Tydtsgch34. Allow me to comment on the content one line at a time:

"Cornell has an endowment of over $5 billion." -- The endowment amount is already listed in the infobox of the page. Any reference to it should be glancing and use the same reference used using WP:REFNAME (I can help with this)
"The University does not disclose the details of its investments however it is known that it invests a significant portion of its endowment in the energy sector, thus profitting from coal, oil, and shale-gas extraction." -- I feel this statement is a complete WP:SYNTHESIS and should have no part in the article.
"Cornell received a 0.41 / 9.00 on the STARS review for Positive Sustainability Investments..." -- This is a possibility for inclusion, but it's meaningless without any context. What percentile does a 0.41 rating equate to?
"...a decline from previous years." -- Any evidence to back up this claim? Over how many years? How significant a decline?
"Students are currently calling for divestment of the university endowment from fossil fuels by 2020..." -- Per WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, a single student vote covered by the student newspaper does not seem noteworthy enough for inclusion here.
"Cornell currently has $60 million invested in alternative energy, sustainable forestry and environmental credit investments." -- This is also a possibility for inclusion, but is there any notable coverage beyond the student newspaper to make it noteworthy enough for inclusion here?

—Eustress ^talk 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Eustress, thanks for working with Tydtscgh34. Why don't you just offer a suggested edit to Tydtsgch34's contribution and insert it into Cornell University? So far as I can tell, it's inappropriate to argue that one needs more references for facts about a university than coverage in the student paper; from a cursory review, that is a common standard for content on university pages on Wikipedia, and it's arguably a higher standard for content than what is simply listed on a university webpage. --The Cunctator (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment above pertaining to coverage of an event by a campus newspaper has nothing to do with whether or not a student newspaper is a reliable source. The issue is whether the event is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS (which I referenced above) states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." If coverage of a campus event is constrained to one point in time and to a campus newspaper, then I don't think that meets enwp's notability threshold and should therefore not be included. —Eustress ^talk 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just offer a suggested edit to Tydtsgch34's contribution and insert it into Cornell University? --The Cunctator (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/01/cornell-announces-sweeping-new-financial-aid-program. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Assertion that Cornell is a " is an American private Ivy League research university"

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Cornell is a unique hybrid University consisting of 4 Public (SUNY affiliation) and 5 Private schools: (http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/stats.cfm)

"Cornell is the federal land-grant institution of New York State, a private endowed university, a member of the Ivy League/Ancient Eight, and a partner of the State University of New York. It has been described as the first truly American university because of its founders' revolutionarily egalitarian and practical vision of higher education, and is dedicated to its land-grant mission of outreach and public service." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.67.221 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cornell identifies itself as a private AND public university. See "Identity" section on Facts about Cornell: http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/stats.cfm "Identity: Public and private" Stilman01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

One caption saying public and private does not mean that it is both. If there is more detail about being both, then it can be discussed. I think that an affiliation with a public university does not make Cornell itself (which is private) a public university. It should stay off the article until a consensus is reached on this talk page. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Cornell is a private as well as a federal land-grant university. The article has been updated to reflect this. See http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts.cfm for reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.243.33 (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Cornell gorge suicides with the Cornell Univ article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disagree with merging. We don't want to have all the details about the history of gorge-jumping suicides from the 1970s to the 2000s in the body of the Cornell University article. These details are best kept in a separate Cornell gorge suicides article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seal

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User talk:Ilberia continually puts his or her altered image of the Cornell seal on the Cornell University article. Additionally, once an editor undid Ilberia's vandalism, User talk:2601:602:8200:7E6A:694C:7D0B:8077:4497 suspiciously undid a revision that reinstated Ilberia's handiwork. This needs to end. Bless you, Lacmaboingo (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519173958/http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/SoutheastAsia/resources/research.asp to http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/southeastasia/resources/research.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828024005/http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu:80/southeastasia/ to http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/southeastasia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626082316/http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/cornell_facts.pdf to http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/cornell_facts.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102092343/http://ezra.cornell.edu/posting.php?timestamp=1165899600 to http://ezra.cornell.edu/posting.php?timestamp=1165899600
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qatar-med.cornell.edu/aboutUs/purpose.html?name1=Purpose%20and%20Mission&type1=2Active
Corrected formatting/usage for http://explore.cornell.edu/scene.cfm?scene=Natural%20Beauty&stop=CU%20-%20NB%20-%20Campus%20Gardens
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823112148/http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/publications/asq/ to http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/publications/asq/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112042726/http://cornellsun.com/node/17613 to http://cornellsun.com/node/17613
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305135329/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_1_55/ai_54831715/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_1_55/ai_54831715/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Largest indoor natural rock climbing wall in North America

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find it highly doubtful that Lindseth is, in fact, the "largest indoor natural rock climbing wall in North America". Lindseth is not that big. 72.0.150.238 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Does John Cleese truly represent "Famous current and former Cornell faculty"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cleese has been represented in the article as "Famous current and former Cornell faculty" for quite a long time, and I think it's misleading. I wonder if anyone else feels the same. Cleese's appointment is "Professor at Large," and later "Provost’s Visiting Professor." As I understand it, he doesn't teach any class on the schedule that you could actually take. He shows up once a year to give a public lecture and maybe visits a class of his choosing. According to this article he visited seven times between 1999-2007. He has none of the responsibilities of an actual faculty member, in the sense of publishing, teaching, advising, etc. However, I'm not on campus. Does it really feel to the students like Cleese is part of Cornell? - Kzirkel (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide prestige?

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

An unregistered editor would like to insert the following sentence into the lede of this article: "Cornell is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world."

The lede is supposed to be a high-level summary of the information in the body of the article and I don't think that the material in the body support this statement. ElKevbo (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned in Columbia's Wikipedia opening paragraph then? Columbia's is mentioned in the lede as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.63.222 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; this isn't the Talk page for that article so it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that you're edit warring to add material that is not supported by the sources you're citing or what is in the body of the article. If you want to make a strong, sweeping claim then you need equally strong, sweeping evidence; cherry picking a few years of ranking data is nowhere sufficient (nor is it in line with our policies about neutrality and no original research). ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, in Harvard's Wikipedia it says this: Established in 1636 and named for its first benefactor, clergyman John Harvard, Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States[6] and among the most prestigious in the world.[7] Why did people delete my comment about Cornell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.63.222 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion in that article's Talk page about this exact topic; I encourage you to read it. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you please reinsert my suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.116.63.222 (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. You're liable to be blocked from editing if you continue this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As ElKevbo has said, other page's discussions are irrelevant here (although one can discuss general guidelines from WikiProject Higher education if there are applicable ones. The bar to claim "one of the most prestigious universities in the world" is pretty high, so it is on the user that claims it to present evidence that it meets that bar. A few citations from ranking pages are not enough in my opinion, and the bar has yet to be met. It should be removed until then.Eccekevin (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"one of the most prestigious universities" ... this kind of language is so transparently marketing-oriented, and the phrasing "one of" is so vague as to be meaningless. According to whom, compared to what? It's not only inappropriate for wikipedia ... frankly it's a bit insulting to Cornell. The rankings and lists of prestigious faculty, awards, and alumni tell the story. - Kzirkel (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable for the lede of an article to have broad statements that summarize what is in the body of an article. I just don't see that this particular article has information in the body that supports this particular statement. ElKevbo (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur. What User:ElKevbo is getting at is that if you look at other universities, the information in the lead paragraphs needs to closely track the body of the article (especially when it's making highly contentious claims about the university in comparison to other universities). If the body of the article establishes that a university is frequently ranked among the top universities in the world, it is okay to say that. But "prestigious" is a highly subjective concept and is much more difficult to support unless you have sources that specifically say that. If you are trying to characterize a university as prestigious because it is highly ranked, that is original research in violation of core policy Wikipedia:No original research unless the body of the article already cites (or even better, quotes) reliable sources that specifically make that connection. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above. --Drevolt (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to some general characterization of Cornell's prestige in the lead, per WP:HIGHEREDREP (let's please use the extensively discussed precedent rather than repeating arguments), but it'll need sources, and none have been provided so far. I also share Kzirkel's concern that "one of" is too vague. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As marketing it falls flat and makes the uni sound less prestigious than it actually is. It's an Ivy League institution and if a reader doesn't know what that implies they can click on the link. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

eCornell

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a circular link from eCornell back to Cornell which I replaced with a link to eCornell's website. They have a mess of programs and killing the eCornell page with a redirect I think was a mistake - one I'm unprepared to fix. 66.102.220.134 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on 'Ithaca Campus' green initiatives

I would like to expand on the last paragraph under the Ithaca Campus section 2.1. The current information on 'green' initiatives is good, but outdated and lacks the inclusion of their Climate Action Plan to reach net carbon neutrality by 2035. In the recent years expansions to their solar farms, and the development of Earth Source Heating enhanced geothermal have been underway. I think this section would benefit from the addition of a short paragraph on such renewable endeavors. Let me know what you think. (December 2020)

"It is ranked among the most prestigious universities in the world."

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the Wikipedia pages of Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and UPenn, the prestige of the university is mentioned after the founding date is given. Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Brown all place the prestige line at the end of the opening paragraph.

Cornell is the only Ivy to reference its prestige prior to its founding date. For this reason, I am choosing to move the sentence "It is ranked among the most prestigious universities in the world." to the end of the first paragraph and change "It" to "Cornell." BSC-56 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone brave enough to talk about the suicide statistics and S-harassment on the Cornell Camp.?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Or is this not notable w/o evidence. Go to the reddit page and ask people about their experience? How many attempts? ShouldveGoneToBerkeley (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources is the threshold for any content. The article here already has a whole paragraph about suicides. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Baseball fields

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hoy Field is no more, and I have updated Hoy Field (Cornell) accordingly. There is no article for Booth Field, however, and I do not know whether one is justified or necessary; various templates continue to point to Hoy Field. - choster (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] Doolittle, Nancy. "Endowment return positive in FY2012". Ezra Magazine.

[2] ttps://stars.aashe.org/institutions/cornell-university-ny/report/2013-03-08/12/56/404/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] Augenstein, Erica. "Student Assembly Urges Cornell to Divest From Fossil Fuels". Cornell Sun.

[4] ttp://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2013/04/05/skorton-cornell-will-not-divest-%E2%80%98immediate%E2%80%99-future. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://cornellsun.com/node/56170. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]