Talk:Columbia University/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

ALL TC grads get CU diplomas

The official Charters and Statutes of Columbia University dictate on page 97 under 'XXIV Teachers College' S243: "The University will confer appropriate degrees and diplomas upon students... the college shall grant no degrees or diplomas."

ALL TC grads get CU diplomas not just those with degrees conferred by GSAS (aka Ph.Ds). ALL TC GRADS ARE CU ALUMNI.

(My cousin got a MA degree from TC a few years ago and the diploma it is straight up Columbia University, no different from any other...) CUfiveo (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am checking it out. ABCDE22 (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@CUfiveo, your issue has been solved, I have corrected that. But plz stop bringing your experience in wikipedia. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Ph.D., Ed.D. and M.Phil graduates of Teachers College are granted their diplomas through the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences is not wrong; therefore it does not need to be corrected. If you look at my edits, I said nothing about other degrees and for a reason. I rather be safe than sorry especially when people are making 100k investments to get a degree (not just at Teachers College but at other places as well) and when you have Columbia Alumni Association and tables published by Office of Planning and Institutional Research casting doubts on that, I wanted to err on the side of caution and only write the degrees we have absolutely no clouds hanging over. But this is not something I am interested in debating so I will let it stand; however, Teachers College's status as an affiliate has been confirmed and affirmed on almost every official source and I intend to fulfill my responsibility to ensure that our readers are fully informed by noting its affiliate status on the list. --HamiltonProject (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@HamiltonProject, your edit was not technically wrong; but I beleive it could be confusing to many readers. Some might interpret that MA and Adv. certificate and certificate are given by TC exclusively which is not true. I have cited source regarding it. I believe the source you had cited was about CU alumni association; about who is eligible to get in the association etc. That is the reason I think that source did not address the degree/diploma matter adequatly. Although you are free to write about Alumni association in separate section; if you wish to invrest your time in that task. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Alumni Association website explicitly says "Please note we are currently not permitted to offer access to alumni of affiliate schools (Teachers College, Barnard College, Union Theological Seminary, Jewish Theological Seminary, and affiliate programs). The Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (GSAS) is the granting school for all Ph.D., Ed.D. and Masters of Philosophy degree holders at Teachers College. T.C. alumni from these specific degree programs will have access to the Alumni Community directory upon graduation". There is also the absence of Teachers College degrees in the table published by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research which seems to confirm that Teachers College graduates do not receive Columbia degrees but then you also have the Official Charters and Statues saying something very different. Teachers College is designated as an affiliate school and listing that fact on the list is something that should not be controversial at all but the degree issue is not a clear-cut case we have here. I like to err on the side of caution (better be safe than sorry) but again, this is not a clear-cut case like listing the affiliate status on the list and therefore would not further argue either way.--HamiltonProject (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is outdated from the Columbia Alumni website. I graduated from TC in 2017 with an M.S. in Neuroscience & Education. My diploma not only states conferred by the Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (signed by both Presidents) but I am part of both the Columbia Alumni Association and the TC Alumni Association.24.104.66.82 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to login to your account, CUfiveo. Anyway, pursuant to Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, I am asking you to stop editing Columbia U related articles going forward. Thank you.--HamiltonProject (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But I have never said that TC is not an affiliate. You might be forgetting that I am also tried hard to keep the "affiliate" word next to TC with you. I just said WITH CITATION that, all diploma of TC are provided by Columbia. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made it clear that that part of the response was for CUfiveo as I am sure he is still watching. I trust you and the decisions you make. --HamiltonProject (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ABCDE22, I stand by my previous statement that I trust your judgment, but whether all Teachers College graduates are granted Columbia diplomas has been a subject of years of debate due to contradicting sources. If Teachers College graduates are granted Columbia diplomas, I do not know how we can explain the quote from the Columbia Alumni Association above and the absence of Teachers College from the table of degrees awarded (see https://opir.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Statistical%20Abstract/opir_degrees_awarded.pdf). I think it is better to leave it out (and not argue one way or the other about the degree status) to avoid future controversies and to ensure we are 100% accurate. I am not saying Teachers College graduates do not receive Columbia diplomas; I am rather saying that I am not comfortable with the level of confidence I have given the contradictory sources and the uncertainty of the controversies. Of course the ideal situation is to be able to say it with certainty, but given the contradictory sources, we are at least 100% accurate if we do not mention it either way. So I am more comfortable sticking to the fact that the diploma is signed by Presidents of both institutions which is 100% clear without any doubt if you look at the diploma and mentioning this in the article--HamiltonProject (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Much though I want to avoid getting into this argument!) I think we're making too big a deal of this and that's probably happening because of the obsession with the "affiliate" wording, which itself appears to arise out of the separate administrative and financial setup that the college maintains. While all that is confusing, the diploma part should not be confusing at all. Teacher's College is technically "Teacher's College Columbia University". Like all other schools, TC graduates are present at commencement ([1]). Therefore, it follows, that whatever diplomas they award are automatically Columbia University diplomas. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RegentsPark. I think I am not saying that Teachers College graduates do not receive Columbia degrees, but rather am saying that because we have contradictory sources (namely, the table of degrees awarded published by Columbia's Office of Planning and Institutional Research), it is better to err on the side of caution and write what we are 100% certain about. But as I have mentioned above, this is not a clear-cut case like the affiliate wording so I am really not inclined to change things drastically.--HamiltonProject (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

HamiltonProject, I think it is pretty much clear that TC and BC grads receive CU diploma; as it is clear in university charter which I have already cited. I do think you mentioned cite do not speak of TC and BC because those are administratively separate. I do beleive we can not be accurate if we remove or hide such important information from wikipedia. That would not be the right thing to do. Again another important thing to say, it is not wikipedia's work to be accurate; we are obliged to write whatever crdible info is out there. We are not here to do original research and be accurate. In your persuation of exact accurate info you are trying to clear something which is intentionally vague and doing original research; which violate wikipedia's policy. ABCDE22 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

And finally, I really don't find that TC and BC grads get Columbia diploma are a matter of debate at all; as it is clearly written in official charter and status that they receive. Also, I can bet no source from Columbia or otherwise denies that TC and BC grads receive Columbia diploma, that's what I can assure all after research of at least a year. ABCDE22 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the degree issue, I will let the other editors decide. This is something I do not have 100% confidence either way so my approach was to err on the side of caution but do understand that there are multiple points of view. --HamiltonProject (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ColumbiaUniversityShield.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We must use a public domain item for the page's main photo. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't. This specific image might not be appropriate for this article's infobox but we're not required to use an image in the public domain. A suitable image can be used under fair use. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all. The shield of the school is fair use. For example look at the Wikipedia entry for Harvard. Unfortunately, XXeducationexpertXX has photoshopped a bogus mishmash of signs (Columbia College crowns + shield + Seal) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_Shield.png which is absolutely incorrect and at odds with Columbia University's visual identity guide, published here: http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf. FYI, collaging a bunch of logos and shields that are not your own work, does not make the end result "your own work"! I am pleading with all editors to remove this bogus file from Wikimedia and suspend the user who had created it in violation of all copy rights and simple decency and is not willing to listen to reason. This is not a dispute over opinions — simply look at what the school itself has officially published. Karl Montague (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Change Logo: Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

Per https://visualidentity.columbia.edu/ logos need to be updated. Shield is not used to represent university. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University#/media/File:Columbia_University_shield.svg is not the logo of the university. Themak8 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: what should it be changed to? Seagull123 Φ 22:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TimSmit (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this could be a valid source for the change of logo: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/identityguidelines/identity1.html

Accordingly, "...the official logo is the modern crown adjacent to the full name of the University" --Glubbdrubb (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing is one issue, but we also need to have an image to use. Is there an image already uploaded here that satisfies WP:IUP? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Making sure that it can be appropriately used under fair use here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The correct logo is already in the article, at the bottom of the infobox: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/Columbia_University_logo.svg/520px-Columbia_University_logo.svg.png --Glubbdrubb (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

Change incorrect US News and World Report ranking (7th in the world) to correct ranking (6th in the world) according to the source referenced and linked in the article. Prekmarg (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stand Columbia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stand Columbia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Stand Columbia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Can someone please take a look at my recent change to the entry and the subsequent anonymous removal of said edit? The removal states that the information is in the body of the entry but I don’t see it. If it’s there, someone please tell me where. If not, please revert to my change. George R. Brumder (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Dunning School

Note of William Archibald Dunning and the Dunning School he and his Phd students promoted (many of them became prominent history professors in their own right) have been excised from this entry. I can certainly understand wanting to exclude the huge influence this professor and his historiography had on the United States from this advertisement for Columbia but it's a violation of our neutral point of view, due weight, and advertisement policies. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other editors. The edit summary used by our unregistered colleague seems reasonable to me; it would be more helpful if you could respond to the objections that were raised in that edit. ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

How is it reasonable User:ElKevbo? It identifies Dunning's work and influence in the wrong century. It calls him obscure. And compares him to far less influential professors of history including Eric Foner at Columbia who has written extensively about Dunning and his legacy. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We have to be very selective about what we include in this article given the history and complexity of the subject. Your edit added an entire (single-sentence) paragraph about one faculty member in a section where no other faculty member has their own paragraph. Your addition was also not integrated into any of the existing content.

Can you propose a version of your edit that is incorporated into the existing text and context instead of being a separate, stand-alone paragraph? ElKevbo (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that we shouldn't be pushing the bad under the covers. At the least, Dunning should be on List of Columbia University people (he is not). I also noticed that Mehmet Oz is missing from both articles so FloridaArmy is making a pretty good case for a selection bias. However, the IP is partially correct that the proposed text does not fit with the article flow so we should think about where it should be added. The text itself is not excessive but it does need something that tells the reader that Dunning, or the Dunning School, were an important thing (perhaps a better citation?). --RegentsPark (comment) 01:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You also have John Burgess (political scientist). He stated that "black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind." These were and are very influential scholars who left a lasting and important legacy. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Some of the work of these fine gentleman is noted here but there are oodles of sources including from Foner and many others. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User who added the new paragraph here. I agree that Dunning was notable, though from reading the Burgess article he appears to be rather obscure outside of this niche regional topic in historiography, so if he's added it should be not for his scholarship and more for his connection with the school of thought, which is why the list I made centers more on schools of thought and fields contributed to by Columbia faculty than on individual people. If you can figure out how to list first the Dunning School, then Dunning and Burgess as founder and contributor, that would be AOK. On whether to directly label the Dunning School as white supremacist here, I'm ambivalent, but I'd err on the side of caution and say this might not be the best article for this discussion. Normsupon (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Burgess' entry states he was a pioneering American political scientist who spent most of his career at Columbia University and is regarded as having been "the most influential political scientist of the period." Part of the Columbia library was named for him. But again we don't have any room to include him, he's "obscure", and we won'taccurately describe these influential leaders at Columbia because they're not as important as Columbia students eating a lot of Nutella, the Yule log tradition (an entire section), or the band's performances during finals week (also an entire section and covered in detail for paragraphs). I get it. The two words white supremacist are super duper hard to fit in here. No room whatsoever. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Academic structure of university

The basic organizing units of the University are its 20 Faculties and 78 departments of instruction. The Faculties are commonly referred to as schools or colleges, depending upon historical circumstances. However, the terms are not synonymous, since some schools and colleges are units within larger Faculties. Academic activity is also conducted through administrative boards, institutes, interdepartmental programs, centers, and laboratories.

The relationship between Faculties and departments is a complex one. In general, Faculties are responsible for curricular programs leading to degrees and certificates, while departments provide the instruction required by those programs. The focus of some Faculties is sufficiently limited that they are simultaneously departments, while others draw on many departments to meet their instructional needs. Conversely, some departments are part of more than one Faculty. 2603:9000:6504:12BD:436:FD19:5018:AFB2 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbia University sundial

I recently created an article for the Columbia University sundial. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Electrical engineering faculty

Do you have electrical engineering faculty? 31.22.151.119 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report ranking

Inasmuch as Columbia will not be ranked by U.S. News for 2023, and there is much reason to believe that its existing ranking of no. 2 nationally was obtained by fraudulent means, the article in its current form is conveying a misleading impression. 50.239.153.142 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

School colors

Columbia's school colors are blue and white. Numerous sources dating as far back as the 1880s back me up on this. [2][3] The World Almanac has been consistently reporting light blue and white to be Columbia's school colors from 1892 to 2022.[4][5] Blue and white have been noted as the school's colors in relation to campus design.[6] Blue and white are the main colors of its coat of arms.[7] The Empire State Building is lit blue and white on the day of Columbia's commencement, not for no reason.[8] The university has a publication, The Blue and White, so called precisely because those are the school's colors. The style guide is not an authority on what the school colors are, because that is not its purpose. It is a guide for making sure the school's promotional materials are stylistically consistent, and what shades of blue are permissible for use. The school colors go far beyond that, and lie in athletic, particularly rowing, tradition, not whatever the administration says in an internal document not meant to communicate to either students or the public. Nowhere does the style guide state that it is defining the "school colors" of Columbia. More likely, it took blue and white as givens, and set out from there to define a more specific way to present itself, leaving out white because there is no need to define what shade of white the school is to use. The style guide doesn't even exclude white as a color, it just doesn't mention it! Josefaught (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The historical and contextual evidence that you provide is meaningful. But the assertion that the university's style guide simply omits one of the institution's official colors is difficult to believe. The specific assertion that "the style guide is not an authority on what the school colors are" is not a credible claim.

I am not a fan of contacting subjects to request clarification but this may be a situation where that would be helpful and appropriate. In the meantime, we could report that white is commonly associated with the university but in the absence of explicit and current evidence we cannot claim that it is an official color. ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The colors are blue (a certain shade of blue) and white. See also for example here. I think Josefaught's explanation for why the white sometimes is not mentioned is correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted again, for some reason. There is only one source, which is not even a source, that disagrees with my claim. And I am not only citing articles from 1915; the World Almanac is published annually. If you want more sources, here are some Spectator articles within the last decade that mention blue and white as Columbia's school colors.[9][10][11][12][13] Here's the assistant vice president of student services, quoted in 2005 alluding to the school's colors.[14] Here are some more articles from the 90's.[15][16][17] Here's the Columbia athletics departments calling its own teams the "Columbia blue and white"/[18] Here's the director of intercollegiate athletics directly quoted as saying, "We are proud to honor the heritage of the great men and women who have competed wearing the Columbia Blue and White."[19] And here again.[20] This article's from 2021.[21] Here's the university's athletic website, stating without ambiguity that the school's colors are light blue and white.[22] Here's the NCAA website, listing Columbia's colors as Columbia blue and white.[23] If that one's unreliable, some one must have screwed up royally. This is not a controversial issue. I do not see any reason for this discussion to continue. The editor who first made the deletion is not even participating in this anymore. Unless the Columbia student body has collectively hallucinated as second color over the past century, or the university administration has decided to axe white without telling any of its students or athletic directors or even its own administrators(???), there must be a good reason why one (one!!!) source (which isn't even a source on the topic???) is holding back this editing process. Josefaught (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You made an edit that claims a current fact citing only a source that is over one hundred years old. That is clearly a problem. If you want to claim that this is a current, official school color then you need to provide a current, official source that explicitly supports that. Otherwise, I've already proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise. (And note that institutions usually have different colors for their athletic program so that's not often a good source for the institution's colors.) ElKevbo (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

School colors are primarily an athletic affair, but per Newyorkbrad's source, that doesn't even matter, because it's used the same in all other aspects of the university. But the university athletic department is as high an authority as you will be able to find. Barring the incredibly unlikeliness of the university's athletic teams using blue and white (which I think is pretty indisputable) while the administration has only explicitly adopted blue (whatever it means to adopt; what kind of university every "formally" adopts colors? As far as I can tell Columbia does not have a standing committee on school colors) but uses blue and white in all of its campus decoration, promotional material, academic regalia, heraldry, etc., I think it's safe to say that the university's athletics are a fine source on this topic.
I will be reverting the edit, with a "current, official source", as you wish. Josefaught (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Josefaught: This sounds like a lot of WP:OR to me and you need a source that explicitly says blue and white are the university colors (whatever that means). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

but uses blue and white in all of its campus decoration, promotional material - No, who told you that? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• File:Columbia University Coat of Arms.png
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Certainly, other colors exist on Columbia's campus.
The first editor to take off white asked for a source. I gave one. ElKevbo reverted and asked for a more recent source. I gave one. It's a university press release, explicitly stating that blue and white are the university's colors. I have given dozens of other sources above as well. Weighing the value of different sources is not WP:OR, or the WP:UNDUE policy wouldn't be possible. Applying definitions to words is not WP:OR. Recognizing the nature and purpose of sources, and where realistically any statement of a fact can be expected to come from is not WP:OR. You are not going to find an official source from the administration (as if the athletics department isn't a part of the administration; as if it wasn't the case that, according to the article on school colors, they are basically a matter of athletic branding and school (athletic) spirit) other than from the athletics department, which has stated unambiguously in the source listed that the university's colors are blue and white. If this isn't a satisfactory notion of what school colors are, please provide another one, because as far as I see it I have listed over twenty sources saying that white is also a school color, and the only cause for doubt is an internal administrative document which is meant for making sure the school's promotional materials are stylistically consistent and aesthetically pleasing, and nothing else. Are we not allowed to say that Columbia's colors are blue and white (ignoring all evidence to the contrary) unless all their admissions pamphlets are printed in white text on a baby blue background? Could there be another reason why Columbia would want its offices to use black ink? If Columbia doesn't explicitly state that the shade of white, a filler, secondary, and default, and therefore easily forgotten color, it wants to use is #FFFFFF, does that mean it can't be a school color? All school history, and even university statements from as recent as last year point to the school having two colors.
I give up. This is a useless argument. If Wikipedia can bear falsehoods, I won't revert again. Josefaught (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if we do not have a source that explicitly says that white is one of the university's official colors then we cannot say that white is one of the university's official colors. Please direct your frustration at the people who wrote the university's style guide, not us.

I would be fine with us including this color as long as we also include a footnote noting that although it's not included in the current style guide it is included in many other sources particularly those that focus on the university's athletic teams. ElKevbo (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

columbia protests are buried within article

There are just two sentences in this entire article about the protests and occupation of campus buildings in 1968, yet there is an entire article on the subject. WTF? Dibromoindigo (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds generally in keeping with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The whole point of that sort of subtopic having its own article is that there's too much to say here in the parent article about the more general topic. The school's main article is definitely not supposed to be "everything about the school". But obviously the exact wording of the summary-content here is fair game for discussion and improvement. DMacks (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"4 undergraduate colleges" is incorrect

The wiki should be corrected to reflect that there are three undergraduate schools.

Columbia's website (https://www.columbia.edu/content/admissions) : Columbia offers a comprehensive array of academic programs. These include three undergraduate schools, fourteen graduate and professional schools, a world-renowned medical center, four affiliated colleges and seminaries, twenty-six libraries, and nearly two hundred research centers and institutes.

The wikipedia page: Columbia is organized into twenty schools, including four undergraduate schools and 16 graduate schools. Rhurj88 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal name of the university

The article states that Columbia is known "officially as Columbia University in the City of New York". This is technically untrue; as referenced in the Organization section, the full legal name of the university is "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York". Although this refers to the university as a corporate entity rather than in the more common academic sense, "Columbia University in the City of New York," omitting "The Trustees of...," is, legally speaking, no more official than simply "Columbia University". Reference should be made to this at the start of the article. Wolframing (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Add Bjarne Stroustrup, "Danish computer scientist, most notable for the invention and development of the C++ programming language", to the list of notable alumni faculty. He is a member of the Computer Science department. 2603:7000:9500:128:A920:4E30:1177:4E52 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Josef Sorett

I recently created a draft for Josef Sorett, the dean of Columbia College. Thriley (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Largest private landowner in New York

Per this NYT article:

"As Columbia University puts the last touches on its brand-new campus in Harlem, it has reached a milestone: The university is now the largest private landowner in New York City.

In a city where land is more valuable than almost anywhere in the nation, the school now owns more than 320 properties, with a combined value of nearly $4 billion. The growth has helped it stay competitive within the Ivy League and meet its broader ambitions to become a global institution."

Where would the best place to add this be? The end of the "Other campuses" subsection? Mooonswimmer 15:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd try adding a few sentences to introduce the "Campus" section before the "Morningside Heights" subsection. The whole section could use a brief bit of context. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Columbia worst ranking for free speech

My edit that is supported by multiple articles that ranked Columbia university as the worst ranked college for free speech is being reverted. Exmanminor (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Exmanminor: Actually, you provide only one source and a dubious one at that. You need a good source that not only quotes the study but also explains why the study is a reliable one. You also need to explain why this is "controversial". Was it heavily commented on? Did it result in a lot of press about free speech in Columbia? If this is a one off, it is not worth including. RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is controversial since it shows the lack of diversity of thought on the Colombia university campus. Exmanminor (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

it is not a dubious source. do you call fox news a dubious source https://www.foxnews.com/us/columbia-students-react-college-ranked-worst-free-speech-campus Exmanminor (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(1) Criticism and opinion are not the same as controversy. (2) Fox News is not reliable for anything political (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), and things like "free speech" and analysis of elite/academia are surely in that agenda. DMacks (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Add this at the end of the first paragraph: "Its influence, wealth, and rankings have made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world." 2600:4040:9754:3000:159B:3032:3C0E:8274 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY Cannolis (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

Change the picture of the coat of arms - logo of the university to match the institution's visual identity guidelines.

It can be found on this website: https://www.wikicu.com/University_Shield Studentoftheworld123 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The website you cited says that the symbol is loosely regulated, and I am concerned that uploading the depiction of the official version as stated there would be a copyright violation. To request an upload of an image, use Wikipedia:Files for upload. If the image is already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia, place the URL here and reopen the request. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

The coat of arms are not in line with the university's visual identity guidelines please replace with the up to date shield (can be found here: https://www.wikicu.com/University_Shield) Studentoftheworld123 (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

I suggest that you link the columbia blue text in the information with the corresponding wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_blue Studentoftheworld123 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is part of the Template:College color list. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Note about media caption under subheading 1.1 "18th Century" (Columbia University ➔ 1. History ➔ 1.1 18th Century)

In the caption for the last image within this subsection, "The 1797 Taylor Map of New York City...", there is an minor inconsistency between the image and the caption (if one would consider it an inconsistency). The caption specifically states that the map is "showing 'The College' at its Park Place (then Robinson Street) location".

As the caption uses quotes around "The College", I am assuming that it is treating the phrase as an excerpt from the image, and is supposed to match with text in the image. However, in the image of the map, Columbia University is actually denoted by "The Colledge". Wondering if this is important enough to copyedit? Kurisupi.dbf (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It's important to maintain accuracy and consistency in Wikipedia captions. In this case, the difference between "The College" in the caption and "The Colledge" in the image may indeed be considered a minor inconsistency. To ensure accuracy, it would be a good idea to update the caption to match the exact wording used in the image, which is "The Colledge."

Making this adjustment will help ensure that the caption accurately reflects the content of the image, and it aligns with Wikipedia's standards for precision and consistency. If you believe this edit is warranted, please go ahead and make the change. If you have any further questions or need assistance with the editing process, feel free to ask. 207.96.13.213 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

In that case, I will make an edit. Thank you! Kurisupi.dbf (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please change Academy Award Winners to 34

Raney Aronson-Rath (JRN’95) - Academy Award-winning producer, 20 Days in Mariupol Tazz9999 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Type

Hi @ElKevbo: could you explain what your objection is to this version? It retains the links that you feel are important while improving accessibility for users. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it improves accessibility; readers are perfectly able to distinguish between two links. And it unnecessarily breaks apart the phrase "research university," leaving the ambiguous adjective "research" standing on its own without sufficient context. ElKevbo (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

readers are perfectly able to distinguish between two links How? If neither link has been clicked the phrase appears identical to a single link. And the adjective does not stand alone - it remains tied to the label of type. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Do spaces not appear on your device...? ElKevbo (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There are spaces in Research university, and yet it is a single link. There are spaces in Research university, and it is two links. If none of those links are previously visited, both of those look the same to a reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection or concern. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As noted, the version you've reverted to presents an accessibility concern because a reader cannot readily see that there is more than one link, and conflicts with MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree that this an egregious accessibility concern that requires us to replace the meaningful and extremely common phrase "research university" with the vague adjective "research."

You're welcome to seek input from other editors. But you may want to keep in mind that this exact same scenario is repeated in hundreds and perhaps thousands of other articles so focusing only on this one article is not advised. WT:UNI is where a few other editors who focus on colleges and universities hang out if you'd like to get their input. ElKevbo (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like that objection can be resolved by simply changing the second link to not be piped. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's unnecessary to remove such an important link. ElKevbo (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting removing any links, just unpiping, like so:

• Private
• Research university

That resolves your objection and the accessibility/MOS issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not amenable to that proposal - it looks terrible and doesn't make sense grammatically. ElKevbo (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SOB is qualified by When possible. Blue seas are never desirable, but I'd argue that the type parameter of university infoboxes is one place they're inevitable, since having appropriate links/grammar takes precedence. I also concur with ElKevbo that this should be discussed more centrally at the project (or infobox) talk page given that it'd have widespread applicability. Sdkb ^talk 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Sdkb, it's very very possible to avoid - all that would be needed is, if it's decided that multiple types should be listed, to list them rather than conjoining them. I appreciate Elkevbo doesn't care for the look of that, but accessibility trumps aesthetics, and site guidelines trump projects/templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo's point about detachment as well, though. "Private" is an incomplete thought on its own. When we say Private research university, the "university" can apply to both, but if we broke them apart with a horizontal list, we'd need to say

• Private university
• Research university

, which would be redundant.

And no guidelines are being violated because SOB is deliberately phrased so as to not be absolute. Sdkb ^talk 01:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Private" on its own is very commonly used for this parameter, as there's nothing incomplete about "Type: Private" as a fact-value pair; that's what this article used for years. The same piping could be applied to the second entry, for the same reason. But it is appropriate to present multiple entries as a list. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not common in articles about US colleges and universities - we began changing it a few years ago. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to retype everything we've already discussed. We disagree on this and I'm not willing to compromise. Sorry. I think that you need to drop this or get other editors to weigh in, perhaps through an RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where you've already discussed why "we began changing it a few years ago". Was there an RfC or similar discussion underlying that decision? If no, then it can simply be changed back. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It was several years ago so I don't recall where or if there was an explicit discussion. It's in alignment with the documentation for the "Type" parameter of the template - but I don't remember if that was also change at that time, already said that we should do this, or was edited later. Incidentally, this was added to the article in July of 2021 and I wasn't even the editor who did that (it was an unregistered editor).

Regardless, you can't simply "change back" an edit that has been in this article for several years, is consistent with thousands of other articles, is aligned with the documentation for the template, and is contested in good-faith by another editor. It's on you to develop a consensus to support your proposed change to content that has been stable for nearly three years. ElKevbo (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree a central discussion is needed given the scale of the changes that have been made, and in the interim further implementation and reverting on this issue should be avoided. I'll reinstate the other changes per the below but leave the type for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixing the sea of blue would help alot with accessibility. This is generally a problem with these universities and colleges...even Harvard is tagged with these problems when it should be an FA article. Moxy🍁 01:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@ElKevbo: regarding your edit summary here, I'd encourage you to review the pages you linked. Your revert lacks rationale and introduces multiple problems, including a broken image and an overlong lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is too long. But you don't have the right to edit war with others and impose your preferred version of this article without discussion. I also agree with OneMoreByte that it's problematic to selectively edit the lede of only a handful of articles when there are many others that should be treated similarly.

With that said, I've been thinking for a while now that we should open a discussion at WT:UNI, perhaps as preliminary discussion before a formal RfC, about the lists of alumni and faculty awards and accomplishments that have been added to the ledes of articles about US colleges and universities. My primary concerns are that they're (a) not neutral as they're invariably just positive, (b) overly detailed and lengthy, and (c) difficult to keep up-to-date. I'd prefer if we could develop a project-wide consensus to omit this information. What do you think? ElKevbo (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Elkevbo and Nikkimaria -

I thank both of you for teaching me through this process about how to be a better Wikipedia editor. We are all trying to help the world learn more in a quality way .

agree with the idea that Wiki editors should agree upon a universal standard. I am the proverbial "Switzerland" with respect to result. I just do not think that standard should be applied haphazardly.

With respect to any university or college, be they Ivy League or no league (collectively, "School"), I believe that whether a summary of accomplishments of School's alumni, faculty, and trustees (collectively "People") should

(1) be included in the lede

OR

(2) not be included in the lede

should be applied "uniformly consistent with Wikipedia SOL. Schools should not be treated differently. I defer to you as how to come to consensus. Thank you helping the Wiki and the world. OneMoreByte (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also ok with Nikkimaria continuing her deleting the Schools Ledes as that will encourage more Wikipedia editors who might be blindsided to understand the issue. Better we hear from the Editors of the HYP crowd (Harvard Yale Princeton) now and not after consensus has been reached as it will open it up again to new round. Hence, Nikkimaria should continue to winnow the edits of all the Ivies and others with relatively long summary of People until consensus is reached. OneMoreByte (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, among other policies and practices, strongly argue in favor of holding a discussion before continuing to engage in edits that are contested by good-faith editors. Consensus may be in favor of these edits but that needs to be established. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are both essays, not requirements; so far no PAG-based arguments have been put forward supportive of the revert, and given the discussion here I'd encourage you to reverse yourself. I do agree though that a formal RfC might be helpful regarding other pages with similar issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Elkevbo in comment made [ (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) ] has persuaded me that WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, and Wikipedia SOP favor holding a discussion BEFORE Nikkimaria deletes the Summary of People paragraphs in Ledes of Ivie and other Schools (as I defined School above in this chain). I was wrong to ask Nikkimaria to delete all the other Summary of People paragraphs in all other Ledes. That being said since University of Pennsylvania is now the only School (out of tens of peer Schools to not have this Summary of People paragraph in its Lede I will add back in what was deleted by someone not part of this talk and place in my reason that such person go to this Talk to understand that we are looking to find Consensus to learn if the "Wiki" powers that be are in favor of these edits. I thank ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) and Nikkimaria for both helping me become a more sophisticated Wikipedia editor. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi OneMoreByte, for your knowledge, the STATUSQUO and BRD pages are opinion essays; such pages do not hold the same weight as policies and guidelines, which are more like the WikiRules you are referencing. As mentioned, it does not appear that these policies and guidelines support the restoration. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

i know I do not know, which is why we wait for consensus I believe that it does not make sense to have one School be judged differently than dozens of its peers.

Though I agree with Elkevbo position I can not stop you from deleting the Summary of People paragraphs from Ledes of Harvard Yale and Princeton ("HYP") and other similar Schools. If you do so delete you will get a large number of editors to write in this talk page. I look forward to seeing the process unfold. I have to always remind myself that we are all just volunteering to help spread accurate information consistent with Wikipedia SOP and other rules. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Could you clarify why specifically you are continuing to revert here? In your post above you agreed that the lead is too long and alumni lists presented neutrality problems, and as far as I know no consensus has formed for the inclusion of the disputed material. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I object to you using the guise of simply removing or trimming the paragraph about alumni to make all kinds of other changes unrelated to that purpose. In particular, you have once again tried to remove the critical phrase "research university" from the lede and that's pretty damned underhanded given the discussion above.

I strongly recommend that you proceed much more slowly and with transparency given that your edits in this article have already proven to be very controversial with multiple editors. ElKevbo (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, other than moving (not removing) that phrase, do you have any other specific objections? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes:

• Why would we unlink the state in the relevant infobox parameter?
• I have previously tried to remove "Ivy League" from the lede of articles and this has been opposed. So the current consensus appears to be that it's critical information that must be in the lede sentence. I disagree with that consensus and I would hope that it could be successfully challenged with a new consensus to remove it from all eight articles. But that should be done transparently with editors given an opportunity to make their opinion known, not done without notice using an edit summary that doesn't even mention the change.

Given how many other articles also have lists of alumni and faculty accomplishments in the lede, I again strongly recommend that you open an explicit discussion before removing that information from the lede of this article. As previously mentioned, I would support such a recommendation. But the number of articles in which this is done and the length of time that it has been in several of those articles demonstrates some level of implicit consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:GEOLINK and the consensus reached in this discussion.

• Similar to research university, this phrase remained in the lead after the edit.

Anything else? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As NebY said, consensus was not reached in that discussion. For example, my question was never answered and my opinion was contingent on the answer to that question. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT NebY said they disagreed with the proposal but did not dispute that consensus was reached, or your own acknowledgement that local practice cannot override projectwide guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - You have way more experience than me and I acknowledge I don't know. My goal is merely to treat Schools uniformly which is why I suggested you delete all the Ledes from all Schools (at least ALL Ivy League Schools.). Elkevbo and I agree with you that it may make sense to delete from all 8. However, per arguments made by ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) I now believe that in light of the 100a (perhaps 1000s) of other articles that have lists of alumni and faculty accomplishments in the lede, we should open what elkevbo wrote was "... a

an explicit discussion before removing that information from the lede of this articl" If we stop deheting this info we may likely precipitate tens of edit wars. Look how quickly your edits of Columbia and Brown were reverted. I wanted either non or all 8 Ivy schools to have their Summary of Notable People in Ledes to be deleted.

N OneMoreByte (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

Take out the unofficially people's university for Palestine, it is not a real thing MegaSportsFan (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done — Please provide a source saying it is not a real thing. The current sources for it are articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

When to reference date of source inline in infobox

There is inconsistency about when to reference the date of the source inline for information in the infobox. It is present for money figures but not for headcounts. I, for one, think the reference links would be sufficient to provide that information, and suggest omitting it inline for all the data. Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Unofficially renamed"

The statement that "students" (who or how is not specified) "unofficially renamed" Columbia University is not supported by reliable sources.

Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, Twitter is not a reliable source.

The opinion piece in the Washington Examiner says, "an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed 'The People’s University for Palestine', not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

The Columbia Spectator photo essay says, "students at the encampment crafted a sign reading 'Welcome to the People’s University for Palestine'", not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

Before this dubious statement is added to the article, reliable sources and sufficient context and explanation must be included. Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reworded it as it does not have RS saying “renamed”. However, the info is sourced by RS that it is used by students on campus, including mention by the student-run newspaper. So inclusion can be assumed, but not “renamed”. I agree on that aspect. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of adding the text in question again, how about you make your proposals here on this talk page? Can you cite a reliable source that supports your contention that students are calling the school this? As I point out above, the articles you previously cited only say this is the name of the encampment or is printed on a banner. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Washington Examiner, your own quote states it in words. Therefore, per WP:ONUS, you need to find a source countering it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bsherr: — I removed “renamed”, so what exactly are you challenging? Following BRD, the “Bold” was addition of rename, “Revert” was your removal, “discussion” was agreement between editors (myself and you) that the sources do not say “rename”. The fix was removing it said rename. Since you have now removed it, please directly state what exactly you are challenging, as you have yet to actually explain the new issue with the text. (This is an edit conflict text I was adding during your reply.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Now, it has exact wording sourced by RS. The Washington Examiner directly states the “camp” / protest area is dubbed (i.e. named) that. Therefore, I changed the text to say that the camp and protest is that per students name. That is per RS. You can discuss this further if you wish to remove it, but you either (1) need to explain how the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source regarding Columbia University or (2) start a true discussion to remove it (it being the sentence about protests at the university along with the dubbed name for the “camp”) as it is sourced based on WP:RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Camp name

Editors are in dispute about whether the ongoing protests ate Columbia University should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

This topic has been edit warred over, and RS including articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator, citing the protests have been removed and challenged.

I propose adding the following sentence (a single sentence), which is directly sourced by reliable secondary sources:

 “In April 2024, amid protests of Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp “The People’s University for Palestine”.

References

To reiterate, mention of the protests in general have been challenged by editors and there is an ongoing edit war pertaining whether or not the protests themselves are notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is a decent compromise as it is a single sentence regarding the protests, which are sourced by RS. Per the Washington Examiner, “And, because no modern leftist cause is complete without a few days of outdoor camping, an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed “The People’s University for Palestine”, which is the source for the camp/tent area being called that term, which is also seen in the Columbia Daily Spectator article (Columbia Universities own newspaper) and the post by Visegrád 24. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As a P.S. note, the editor in complete challenge to any mention of the protests in the article is Bsherr, who has directly requested a consensus about whether or not they are notable for inclusion on the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph as you propose it would read: "In 2010, the School of International and Public Affairs, which was previously a part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, became an independent faculty. In April 2024, amid protests of Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp "The People’s University for Palestine"." The insertion is confusing because context is clearly missing: What protest camp? Which students? The paragraph does not say. Again, you need reliable sources. The Washington Examiner opinion piece is not a reliable source, for the reasons set forth at WP:RSEDITORIAL. If you are able to identify reliable sources, the better place may be in Columbia University#Controversies 2, a section already about this subject. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It can be added there. And I dispute your reasoning that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of The Washington Examiner has no consensus per WP:RSP. If we do include a mention of the current turmoil on campus, the arrests are the far more notable aspect (per the focus of coverage in reliable sources), so that is what we'd want to mention. The addition of a "controversies" section is a very bad idea per WP:CRITSECTION — any mention would go at the end of the history section. Sdkb ^talk 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally make no issue of the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Rather, the issue is that this is an opinion piece. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WeatherWriter, could you explain why you think this does not apply here? If this is a notable, credible statement, can you not come up with a reliable source? --Bsherr (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the entire controversies section should be integrated into the history section. --Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Just flagging that I made mention of the protests in the student life section earlier today, i think before this edit war. Sawitontwitter (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

All three editors currently in this discussion may qualify as WP:INVOLVED editors, as all three editors have commented in some fashion on my talk page in an off-article talk page discussion. A “third-party” editor commenting would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is about administrators refraining from taking administrative action in discussions in which they are involved as an editor. I am not an administrator. But I welcome any other opinions. --Bsherr (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I though “WP:INVOLVED” linked to about involved-editors and something with WP:Third opinion, not admins. My bad. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Clerical note, Bsherr combined sections and I am breaking out sections again for the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherWriter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this dispute is still active but I agree that the sources don't come anywhere close to justify including this information in the lede of this article. I don't think they even justify including it in the body of the article.

And I agree that the Washington Examiner appears to be a very low quality source that probably doesn't meet our reliability standards. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section

While we are on the subject, there seems to be a breadth problem in the recently added controversies section. Recent student protests have involved labor relations, Iran, private prisons, tuition, etc., not just the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the 2024 pro-Palestinian demonstration is the only subject mentioned. How do we resolve this? --Bsherr (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I can try to build out this section if appropriate. This recent conflict was covered my most major U.S. media outelts and caught my attention. Sawitontwitter (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Very bad idea. Bsherr's comment is exactly why we avoid criticism sections — they are a magnet for recentist cruft. The appropriate course of action is to merge anything sufficiently due into the history section and then remove the controversies section, not to try to build out the controversies section further. Past controversies like the 1968 arrests are already covered there in a roughly appropriate level of detail. Sdkb ^talk 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll avoid edits for a few days to see how situation unfolds and whether it warrants further coverage. If not, can delete criticisms section and fold into history section.

Story is being covered on most major news outlets in America and New York Times is currently providing live updates from on campus. I think it's also possible this gets its own subhead, and can rename the curent "Controversies" one Sawitontwitter (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to put it in the currently-one-sentence 21st century subsection? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's best, go for it. Sawitontwitter (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well said, Sdkb. These incidents are part of the university's history and should be placed into proper historical context. For the current situation, it certainly seems that a congressional hearing and mass demonstrations that include arrests and the partial shutdown of the campus warrant a brief discussion in the history section. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is one of balance. For example, Student activism at Columbia University#Ahmadinejad speech controversy received exponentially more coverage in reliable sources, yet isn't mentioned at all. Which is understandable, because, if one were to rank the events in Columbia's history, both of these events would be of low significance relative to what is already covered. So how do we resolve it? --Bsherr (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Then that should probably also be (very briefly) mentioned in the article, too. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it reflects a problematic bias toward recent events. This section giving a broad encyclopedic treatment of three centuries of history now ends with "the university canceled classes on Monday, April 22." That degree of detail is very inconsistent with the rest of the section. --Bsherr (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Then the rest of the section needs to be improved. This article should not be solely about positive events and good news about the university. If there are other notable negative events then they should be included, too. I acknowledge that it's challenging to keep the history section in this article both reasonably short and appropriately comprehensive but it appears that we've struck a very poor balance by omitting critical information that should be included. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it not correct that classes were switched to remote delivery on April 22 rather than canceled? That seems to be what I am seeing in the sources, but the article as written does not say that. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. That may be my fault and I've corrected it in the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

By all means, current controversies should be covered and the section needs to be expanded significantly, with a sub-section for each major controversy. For example, the targeting of Jewish students by pro-Hamas activists/students at Columbia, needs to be covered. Columbia University has a long standing tradition for defending human rights, yet they seem to be ignoring this idea by letting pro-Hamas activists/students incite riots by screaming, "Death to Israel!" --"Death to the United States!", and seem to be aloof to the idea that Hamas, and other such Muslim groups, have very little, if not zero, tolerance for the idea of women's rights, gay rights, etc. Is the faculty at Columbia University endorsing Hamas? Many people think so. This is indeed a controversy and should not be suppressed by any editor who attempts to diminish these issues in such a cavalier manner by referring to them as "cruft", etc. There are plenty of reliable sources out there to cover such issues. .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

Please add Union Theological Seminary to the list of the graduate/professional schools (And mention: affiliate, similar to Teachers College). The reference is Columbia University website: https://www.columbia.edu/content/academics/schools Thanks Tonyak3 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Million thanks Ramihan3 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

was founded in 1836. However, it became affiliate with Colombia in 1926 (despite being independenm).I think that can be important to clarify. Ramihan3 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

Requires editing according to manuel to style. Removal of non-free material that is used improperly is also required. 64.189.18.29 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory article

Apparently much of the LDEO article was copyvio from a long time ago so the article has been reset to a *very* early version. I added some photos I took myself years ago, but the article itself needs a LOT of help if anyone has some time. dm (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)