Talk:Student/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sophos moros

I don't believe whoever edited the "sophomore" part of the article should have said:

"While it appears to be formed from Greek "sophos", meaning "wise", and "moros" meaning "foolish", it is in fact from the word "sophumer", an obsolete variant of "sophism"[2]." That source states that it probably IS formed from sophos+moros, yet the editor says it definitely isn't. I'm going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.176 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, I've found this. Is this truly valid?:

What's the origin of "sophomore"? 26-Dec-2001

---

Dear Straight Dope:

I consider myself one of the brighter millionths that make up the Teeming Millions. Although I am young, I am wise. Being a sophmore means I'm a wise fool, right? --Kevin Collison

SDSTAFF bibliophage replies:

Lots of wise fools have fallen for the false etymology you give, but it's a foolish fool indeed who doesn't even know how to spell the word. It's sophomore, with three Os. (Don't feel bad; I had to look it up to make sure).

Though the first part does come from the Greek word sophos ("wise"), there is no direct relation to the Greek word for "foolish" as is commonly believed. In truth, sophomore is a variation of sophist, a word that has a long and twisted history in itself.

Originally, a sophist (Greek sophistes) was a man who had achieved wisdom. The sophist Protagoras is said to have been the first professional teacher, charging only what his students thought he had earned. He, and many sophists who came after him, were serious thinkers but not on the level of, say, Socrates. Later, professional teachers in ancient Greece became generally known as sophists, but many of these were more pretenders to wisdom than truly wise. These guys were the original insufferable know-it-alls. The sort of plausible yet unsound arguments they were fond of using are called sophisms and the use of such arguments is called sophistry. Other ancient Greek thinkers, more interested in finding truth than winning arguments, were less comfortable claiming to have achieved wisdom. They called themselves philosophers ("lovers of wisdom").

Greek sophisma ("sophism") seems to have entered English two ways, first from the Old French sophime (or soffime), and later from that word's source, the Latin sophisma (or perhaps from a different Old French form, sophisme, which is also the modern French form.) So English had both sophume and sophism as synonyms, and also had the synonymous pair sophumer and sophister for what we would now call a "sophist." Do you see where I'm going with this yet?

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, debate and argument (as an educational exercise, not necessarily as a path to knowledge) was considered an important part of education at Cambridge University. A first-year student at Cambridge, who was not expected to engage in such arguments, was called a fresh-man, which originally meant a novice at any activity. Second- and third-year student were assigned points that they were expected to defend in debate, and clever new arguments were called sophisms. From this, the upperclassmen were called sophisters ("users of sophisms"). This group was later divided into junior sophisters (or junior sophs, second-year students) and senior sophisters (or senior sophs, third-year students). In the seventeenth century, the designation sophumer (essentially a synonym of sophister, as noted above) was inserted between freshman and junior soph. This does not appear to have been an extra year, but seems to have been one or more terms at the end of the first year or beginning of the second, or both. The bachelor's program at Cambridge has traditionally had just a three-year course of three terms per year (but some programs now require four years to earn a bachelor's degree there).

The sophister designations were also used at Oxford University for a time, but it didn't catch on to the same degree. They are no longer used at Cambridge either, but they survive at Trinity College, Dublin, which uses the four designations junior freshman, senior freshman, junior sophister, and senior sophister.

On this side of the Atlantic, the Cambridge designations were used at the first American college, Harvard. It may not be mere coincidence that the school's namesake and benefactor, John Harvard, was a graduate of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The system spread to other American schools from Harvard. Harvard's influence extended to other educational terminology. Alma mater (from the Latin for "foster mother") and alumnus (Latin for "foster son") originated there as well.

By 1726 sophumer had become sophomore in America, the modern spelling probably being influenced by the false etymology from Greek moros ("foolish"). The upperclassmen's "sophister" designation was gradually dropped, disappearing by about 1850. That leaves us with the familiar freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors we have today. High school students had to wait a bit longer. These designations weren't applied to them until about the turn of the twentieth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.176 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative of "Freshman"?

What should be used as an alternative to "freshman" to avoid sexism?? For high school, "ninth grader" is obvious, of course, but how about for college?? As far as I know, my best guess is "first-year college student". Any comments?? 66.245.120.243 14:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• There's actually a word, seperate from "Freshman", for a first year college student.--[[User:, I was a fresher. — Chameleon My page/My talk 16:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here, it's usually "First Year", "Second Year", etc. Adding "university student" is more formal. Holy sock

"First Years" are what we call them in NZ. "Freshers" is what they call them in the UK. Both are non-gender-specific... 203.97.255.167 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps noting the difference in usage is necessary. It is not our job as editors to make Wikipedia PC, it is our job to make encyclopedic articles. If "freshman" is used in the US, regardless of whether or not you think it's sexist, it should be stated in the article. If "first years" is used in NZ then we should note that as well.

As a side note, would those that claim "freshman" is sexist also claim "human" is sexist? If so, then I'd like to see an alternative. Simply because the word has the term "man" in it does not imply sexism, but certainly it implies that the root of the word comes from long ago when people were conspicuously sexist. -- Noetic Sage 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Human" doesn't have the word "man" in it (any more than "Socrates" has the word "rat" in it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

universities throughout America commonly use the term Freshman on various official documents and paperwork as a gender-neutral term, I think this is a moot point... --Coldpenguin 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UK higher ed

Just thought I ought to make a note about my change. I removed: "In Scotland, these courses are generally 1 year longer. Scottish school pupils tend to finish school 1 year earlier than in England and Wales, so end up finishing their education at the same time." This is patently untrue, since some Scottish school pupils go to English universities, and vice-versa. Some take a gap-year. Some students start university in their 50s... there is no "set time" for leaving university. Scottish degrees tend to be MAs and English ones tend to be BAs, and this has got mixed up somewhere to mean "Scottish [high] school pupils are given longer university courses"... Taras

Not true: the Scottish MA is broadly equivalent to the English (non-Oxbridge) BA, and is an historical anomaly in that regard. Scottish university education does start at a lower level than that in England; English students with good A-Level results are usually at least offered admission to the second year of Scottish universities, and it requires much higher Highers to go to most English universities than would be required for equivalent Scottish universities.

I removed this tidbit about UK higher education: In the UK, the word "student" generally refers to someone studying at the college or university level. The word "pupil" is used for someone attending compulsory education such as High School. The article already generalises this, and not just for the UK. SujinYH 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Third year or above??

The definitions in this article say "first" "second", "third or above", and "fourth and last". Is this a logical sequence?? It doesn't look like one to me. 66.245.105.240 15:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I've edited the sentence. AJD 03:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification of International Student Day

I had to do click past a link to find out the meaning behind it was really based on the Czech republic's actions during World War II. Someone should really be more specific, since it really is mainly a Czech thing. - Kade 00:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Description of sentence...

A junior is a student in the penultimate (usually third) year of high school or college.

Please clarify it by changing it to:

A junior is a student in the penultimate (usually third, but sometimes...) year of high school or college. Georgia guy 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It already states 'penultimate', which means second to last. I think that's all the clarification it really needs. --82.37.66.173 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Freshman section

I'm not sure how to edit this without ruining the flow of the section, which is after all almost entirely about the US... but the stuff about pledging is largely irrelevant in the UK, where fraternity/sorority system does not exist. Loganberry (Talk) 11:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a rational thing to talk about how others behave to freshmans in collage? I mean, I was a freshman too but nobody ever did jokes about it. Deliogul 13:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pupil

Pupil is only used in the elementary school because children there are taught under the supervision of a teacher. In an institution above the elementary level, student is used because one is more independent at studying. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

I'm afraid that your information is very limited; "pupil" is used in very many other contexts (and your vague gesture at an etymological distinction is incorrect, so far as I understand it). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Student photo (prank)

Students are often stereotypically associated with childish pranks and jokes.

This image was deleted by User:Scott 110 with the comment "(removed idiotic picture...has nothing to do with article, only illustrates a moron.)" This was reverted by User:Yeanold Viskersenn with the comment "(RV change with un-necessarily vindictive comment. Please provide WP-backed reasoning before removing media.)"

My POV is that the image should be deleted. Though the image does relate to the section it is in, it is one of only two images in the entire article, the first being of a classroom setting. Being the only image of an individual student it tends to slant the article to "all students look stupid" If there were a more balanced set of images representing students as a whole, then I could see leaving this one in. But as it is now, I feel that it should be deleted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If the low number of images implies a slant towards what one image depicts, then surely increasing the number of images in the article is better than deleting them. At the moment we have two pictures showing two very different, but important aspects of student life - work and play. I think that removing either of these will create a less thorough picture of what it is to be a student. A Google search for "student pranks" brings up nearly 1.4 million results - surely there is actually scope to expand this part of the article if anything. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is narrow-minded and flawed at best - not everyone who is a student engages in childish pranks. Further a student can be anyone, not only 25-and-under, immature people that amuse themselves by putting traffic cones on their heads.Scott 110 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that pranks and japes are a significant part of student life, and I would like to see evidence to the contrary before you consider deleting the image and exhaustive references in the article that prove it. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a student and playing pranks are not part of my life. Also you technically violated the Wikipedia 3-revert rule.Scott 110 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a cursory glance of your "sources" seems to point to specific instances where students have played pranks and it was reported in the media. Going to Google, typing in "student pranks" and posting whatever results are returned does not automatically mean your point is proven. Saying that playing pranks are "a signficant part of student life" is also gross generalization - can you find a study that gives concrete numbers regarding this statement? What percentage of the global student population, as a whole, can attest to playing pranks as a daily part of their lives? Does such a study even exist? I doubt it. Unless you can find something like that, frankly you have no argument here, at least not with the statement you are attempting to back up. Scott 110 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I am unsure as to what you are getting at by saying that although having been a student you haven't committed a prank. I did not assert anywhere that practical jokes were a prerequisite of studenthood (neither did I assert anywhere that a student cannot be over the age of twenty-five).

Secondly, I believe that I have not breached the 3-revert rule as I am expanding a section of the article as opposed to rolling back the article back to an earlier state.

Thirdly, I now aim to add further references from numerous published works on the specific subject of student pranksterism, in order to quell worries that the citations already provided do not address a broad enough range of instances to warrant an inclusion of the subject in this article.

Fourthly, it should be noted that both school pranks and senior pranks have had Wikipedia articles dedicated to them for nearly three years, and although this in itself does not warrant inclusion, it is a useful indicator as to the status quo with regards to the general consensus towards inclusion of such information. If both of these types of pranks are significant enough to have an entire article based on them, then surely at the very least the culture of practical jokes amongst, but not restricted to, non-school students deserves a mention in the very article about the demographic in question.

Fifthly, I do not think I need to provide a published scientific study in order to back up an extract from a sentence I made on an article's talk page with regards to my opinion on the proposed deletion of a photograph of a student with a traffic cone on his head.

I propose that herein lies a strong argument for the retention of both the photograph and article section whose deletion is in question. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My issue is with the idiotic picture more than the notion of having a section called "student pranks" in this article. The picture doesn't demonstrate a prank being committed, it only shows a guy with a dirty traffic cone on his head - hardly illustrative of the subject matter. THIS is what you call a student prank: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/09/mit_hacks_mark_1.html. Scott 110 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The image in is the most suitable image on Wikipedia to illustrate the subject matter in question. If it can be replaced with a more appropriate free image, then its removal will be understandable. At present (and this is only my personal opinion here), Scott 110's constant removal of the image, coupled with such comments as "idiotic" and "moron" would indicate a personal dislike towards the image as opposed to a breach of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines with regards to what images can or should be used.

I would also note that the fact the traffic cone is being used as an item of indoor headwear, rather than a traffic cone, would serve to illustrate the section of the article which states "These can often involve petty crime, such as the theft of traffic cones..."

Therefore, the image in question would seem to fit the WP:Images criteria: The copyright of the image is not in question, it is a self-made image that I have uploaded for free use and so clearly conforms to image use policy; it is clearly labelled, it is relative to the article's topic (as explained above); It fits none of the WP:Deletion criteria, that is images which are "unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic".

I have scoured the WP guidelines about fair use policy, image deletion policy, notability policy, and have failed to find a guideline that the inclusion of this image breaches. Therefore, I can only conclude that further removal of this image, until voted for deletion by a panel of administrators, should be considered vandalism, as well as a breach of the 3-revert policy. I will now replace the image, with the expectation that it remain in the article unless the Wikipedia administration decide otherwise. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The image is unencyclopedic. 2. In this discussion, two people (including myself) want the image removed, whereas you're so far the only one that wants to keep it...considering that you posted the image in the first place, seems you're pushing a personal agenda, don't you think? 3. Your conclusion that you not constantly reverting the image back does not constitute vandalism, whereas if I do it, it is....isn't that a remarkable coincidence? 5. The 3 revert rule says you cannot make a reversion 3 times within a 24 hr period on the same article. 6. I have already removed the image again :) Scott 110 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the indents are getting a bit excessive, I am starting over flush left. Since we seem to be having a bit of a revert war between two users and I am the only other user commenting at this time; I am going to add the {{helpme}} tag to see if we can get an opionion for an impartial user. As to the question of the image not meeting some Wikipedia requirement; that is not in question. The image is perfectly acceptable as to its usage in Wikipedia. But that is not the point of the debate here. The point here is the subject matter of the image itself and its appropriateness to this article. So far we have two users who feel that the article is better without the image, and one user (who also is the one who uploaded the image and therefor has a vested interest in it) who thinks that the image adds to the article. As far as the 3 revert rule goes, it has not been technically violated by anyone, but the sprirt of the rule has been pushed to its edge. A two to one vote is hardly conclusive, so hopefully someone else will feel inclined to add their POV on the subject. This is not an administrative subject as the use of this image is strictly limited to its editorial contribution to the article and not to any rules regarding its usage. The globe image that was referenced would have been a good replacement, but unfortunately The Globe has declined to grant permission to use it (I did ask and did receive the following reply:

Thank you for contacing us for permission to use a Globe photograph in a Wikipedia entry. We will not authorize the use of the photo.

Thank you for your cooperation and for your respect of Globe intellectual property.

So for now the vote stands at One to included the photo and Two for its removal. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} is intended for user talk pages. If you need assistance settling a content dispute, please seek dispute resolution. Cheers! Vassyana 03:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel contacted me, requesting I take a look into the matter. I see that the section on student pranks is incredibly well referenced, so there is no question that the issue of student pranks deserving a place within the article, and, as a student (a student currently sporting several cuts on his hand...) I have to say that I agree it deserves a section. The question remains as to whether this image is appropriate to illustrate the section in question, and, as much as anything else, this comes down to the opinion of the editors in question. Should it be agreed that this image does not adaquately display the issue, or displays it in an inappropriate light, then the image should be removed from the article. It is not, as Yeanold Viskersenn said, up to a panel of administrators to decide the appropriateness of the image, it is down to anyone who decides to join in this discussion (not this vote) and adds anything worth considering to it. The next step, should an agreement not be reached, would be request for comment, the Mediation Cabal, or requests for mediation. However, hopefully, we can reach an agreement here.

So, what do I think about the issue in question? Well, Wiktionary defines a prank as A practical joke or mischievous trick. and defines a practical joke as Something done for amusement to the detriment of someone else.. Placing a cone upon your own head is not a practical joke, and it could barely be described as a mischievuos trick. I would say that this is not an example of a student prank, and is simply an example of [drunken?] revelry, or clowning around. A prank, as was mentioned above, would be better demonstrated by something bigger, or, at least, something involving one person doing something to someone else (or perhaps a group of people doing something to a group of others, one person to a group, etc) as that seems to better demonstrate what a prank is. A final matter- I should think that students, being known for their pranks and all, should be demonstrated doing something a little more inventive (and meddlesome) than placing a cone on their heads. As such, I would say that this image is inappropriate for the use intended for it here, and should remain removed. J Milburn 10:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The image has nothing to do with a prank.++aviper2k7++ 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have looked up several definitions of "prank".[1]. In none of the four seperate definitions is mentioned "the misfortune of others". Definitions include "acting like a clown or buffoon" (closely fits the description given by Scott 110 as an "immature" "moron", as well as the description given by J Milburn "clowning around"). Other definitions include to "dress or decorate showily or gaudily", "a ludicrious act done for fun and amusement" (again uncannily fitting Scott 110's earlier description "amusing themselves by putting traffic cones on their heads"). I think Wiktionary's definition of prank is the least reliable of all the definitions cited so far, for obvious reasons. Even if, for the benefit of the doubt, we take Wiktionary's definition as infallible, that still means we have four cited definitions over one that would suggest that the image in question is accurate in its portrayal of student pranksterism and japery.

Aside from this, the picture does clearly illustrate an example from the article: The theft of traffic cones. The cone has clearly been taken (almost certainly without consent) from where it should be, ie a road.

Secondly, I keep seeing a repetition of an argument that the image is "unencyclopedic" but have not yet seen an explanation as to why. Is "unencyclopedic" an umbrella term for any image one can't think of a valid excuse for removing? What content in this image is contrary to what constitutes an encyclopedic image - specifically? Is it the camera angle? The person's face? If it's because the person is acting like a clown or buffoon then in this instance that argument is null and void due to the nature of the article in question. Please understand I'm not trying to be clever here - I really don't understand the claims that the image is unencyclopedic.

Thirdly, whether or not I have a vested interest in the image is neither here nor there, considering none of my argument is based on opinion but both Wikipedia guidelines, precedents and definitions, and I would strongly appreciate not having my viewpoint discredited because of the fact that I am the image's contributor.

I have also noticed a new argument creeping in: that a better image could be used to represent the subject in question. Is this not true for almost every user-uploaded photo on Wikipedia? Now I certainly don't disagree that the image doesn't absolutely perfectly demonstrate what the article section about, but as I have said before, it is the best image in the database so far, and the fact that it could potentially be improved upon is NOT grounds for deletion.

NB: As for the vandalism issue, I would consider the repeated removal of an image that's been in an article for a good year, without an argument fully backed up by cited WP guidelines (not to mention WP:DICK-like comments such as "moron" and "idiot") as vandalism. Each time I have undone the deletion of the image I have also improved the article by adding both extra information and references.

NB 2: Also, my apologies for the depth and duration of this debate, but seeing as it has not yet descended into insult hurling, xenophobia or many of the other things that WP talk pages are renowned for, and is also unresolved, I feel it's entirely just to continue the debate until a practical decision is agreed upon. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that we are not going to be able to reach a consensus among ourselves and therefor it looks to me that we need to take this to the next step which would be to open a RfC (Requests for comment). Any additional comments before I (or anyone else who might chose to do so) takes the next step and opens up the RfC? Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just expanded the article section significantly, with numerous references (from universities, scientific studies and news outlets) highlighting the scope of the traffic cone issue within the culture of student pranksterism and mischief as justified above. I now believe that the photograph in question is more appropriate than ever to be included in this section of the article, and if a discussion was begun afresh there would be no doubt as to the question of its retention. Yeanold Viskersenn 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in my two cents. Quite simply, this is a ridiculous argument. However, looking at the edits of the users concerned, I have strongly suggested that Scott tone down his comments, and perhaps take a Wikibreak. It's only a picture. If you don't do things like that as a student, accept that others do, and move on! Hawker Typhoon 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Silly argument, maybe, that isn't really relevent- it is perfectly civilised, and serves the end of improving the encyclopedia. Now, I love what Yeanold has just done with the creation of a new section- perhaps we need a new policy- Please improve Wikipedia just to prove a point, because I think that's what (s)he has just done. I wouldn't have thought there was much to be said about student disruption involving traffic cones, but the fact there have been rules, statements and studies on the subject shows it is worthy of note, and that picture illustrates it perfectly. I think this is an excellent solution. J Milburn 21:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's step back for a minute and look at the article the way it is right now. You have an overly-cited section on student pranks, coupled with an unnecessarily long section on theft of traffic cones...in it's present form, do you think this article will ever be featured? Further, if you're talking about student pranks, how about mentioning something that's actually important, i.e. some of the crazy stuff that goes on at MIT. Fine we can't get a copyright-free image for the event I cited above (yet), but at least THAT's worthy of mentioning, instead of this trivial traffic cone-theft thing. Also that event is not the only notable one, there are many, many examples. Yeanold is trying to prove that traffic cone theft by students exists - fine but why is this important enough to warrant an entire section + a goofy picture? In my opinion, there is no need to mention it past the following sentence:

"Students also have a long association with pranks and japes.[2][3][4][5][6] These can often involve petty crime, such as the theft of traffic cones and other public property..."

Also this article is about students, not student pranks in the first place. Obviously Yeanold here is trying desperately to keep his picture. Further, all these sources he keeps citing and adding unnecessary sections really isn't contributing to the article, its detracting from its original subject. Reviewing the discussion above, more people are in favor of removing the image than keeping it, therefore I am deleting it again. Really, if Yeanold here wants to keep this image, the only way I could possibly see that happening, is that a new article on student pranks be started and the image put there, along with the whole "fascinating" history on student traffic-cone theft. Scott 110 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just had a look at some of the references, and realised how silly what I said before was. Scott is essentially correct here- we are detracting from the topic of the article. Perhaps this traffic cone thing does deserve a mention somewhere, but I am (as I have only joined this article for the purpose of this discussion) forgetting that this is an article about students, not their pranks. Therefore, I would say that the new section is unneeded, and therefore revert to my original thoughts on the image. J Milburn 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a nice guy and trying to compromise, I have made a little change here to see how it will be recieved. Please see the traffic cones article and tell me what you think.Scott 110 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the folks over at the traffic cone article were asking for something about traffic cone theft, whereas here we're trying to get rid of its mention (at least I am). Anyways I think this is the perfect solution to this whole debate, it totally kills two birds with one stone. Any comments? Scott 110 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you're such a nice guy [2] [3] [4] [5] - if it's unencyclopedic, why are we moving it to another article? Surely deleting it would be preferable, if indeed it is unencyclopedic. Student japes are a key part of student life across the world. I think I see Yeanolds point here - there should be a section on student japes - not just traffic cone theft, but any and all japes and tricks. Moving it to another article just spreads the problem around. No offence intended, Scott, but you keep shifting your arguments, and given your past contributions I'm not at all sure that you've got Wikipedia in mind. Could you summarise - in a sjort sentence, ideally - what's wrong with having a section on the lighter side of life as a student, with a picture to illustrate it? Hawker Typhoon 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about no? I don't need to summarize what's already been written here by not only myself but other people. Scott 110 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's unencyclopedic, why have you added to another article? Hawker Typhoon 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to be a pragmatist. Obviously Yeanold has done his homework on this section and is also adamant about keeping it, and thats something I can respect...so instead of prolonging the debate which is counterproductive, I am trying to find a speedy resolution. I for one don't want to keep any of it, but its getting silly now - after all we're talking about traffic cone theft - and plus I have a life to live. If you have something constructive to add to this debate, by all means, please do so.Scott 110 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And also to clarify, I am not against inclusion of a student pranks section. I just don't think we need a prolonged section on traffic cone theft, accompanied by a picture on this page. It however seems to fit nicely on the traffic cone article.Scott 110 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the image to another article isn't being pragmatic, it's simply moving the image out of the article. It accomplishes nothing beyond that, unless your goal is to remove the image from the article. In my opinion, the image belongs in this article more than one on traffic cones - albeit with an expansion of the article, and of course, the addition of more pictures, to portray the full rang of student life - study, drinking, japes (including a section on traffic cones), houses, graduation, the culture of students. Hawker Typhoon 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are a little bit confused, this article is not about college life, its about students in general. As I have said before, a student can be anyone - whether a 10 year old (who most certainly would not be drinking), or a 40-year old executive working towards an MBA (who I highly doubt would be playing pranks, up to and including putting traffic cones on his/her head). Really this is my entire problem with that photo in the first place, it easily confuses people into thinking a student means someone (likely a young, immature adult) attending college, when in fact the subject is far, far more diverse than that.Scott 110 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all, old chap - but the word 'Student' has, in the UK and Commonwealth (and trust me on this, I'm a student who attends a school with members of nearly every Commonwealth nation, indeed there are two Yemenis in my class), a distinctive image attached to it - that of someone aged 18-30 attending a University, or college in my case. A student, whilst technically anyone learning any subject, has a distinct meaning in modern use. A 40 year old executive would be a 'mature student', he would not describe himself as a student in the traditional Western sense of the word. The fact is that 90% of students in the Commonwealth and US follow a particular style of life, which needs to be documented as much as students from other cultures. If there isn't enough information on all types of student, add the to others, don't remove from what we've got. Hawker Typhoon 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I don't trust you on that. As per Princeton, "S: (n) student, pupil, educatee (a learner who is enrolled in an educational institution)" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=student). PS. care to cite your claim that 90% of students in the Commonwealth and US follow a particular lifestyle, i.e one that involves drinking and putting traffic cones on their heads, with a verifiable source? Scott 110 02:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"In many countries, the word "student" or a cognate equivalent (e.g., French "étudiant") is reserved for higher education or university students; persons attending classes in primary or secondary schools are typically called pupils.". I will not cite my claim that 90% of students in the US/Commonwealth follow a certain lifestyle because the number "90%" is arbitrary and was used to accentuate the point I am trying to make - if there is a student stereotype, it should be included. Hawker Typhoon 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me but the last time I checked, that entire statement was uncited. Am I wrong? Also unless you can provide a verifiable source, one can only assume the point you are making is arbitrary in itself.Scott 110 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that most students aren't aged 18-21, getting drunk, and creating trouble for the establishment? What are they doing instead? Joining the riding club? Going travelling? 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs)

Umm...studying?Scott 110 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! I forgot students did that all day long and that all they did was eat, sleep, and study. That explains all those student union nightclubs that we don't have, and all the students you don't see at protest marches, and of course all those reports Yeanold has provided on students not stealing traffic cones. Some people might think it's a bit odd that they study for every waking minute of the day - but then, what else could they possibly do? Do you have any idea chaps? What do they do when they're not studying?Hawker Typhoon 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My take is delete that picture or move it to an article on pranks. If that person really wants to keep his picture from being deleted, than do just that. That picture is not encyclopedic for thjis articel. This article should be on the academics and other stuff surrounding students and not pranks. Mr. C.C. 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Section 2 of student debate

Well, it time to move this back flush left as we are running out of space. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of viewers at home: students, when not studying, engage in all sorts of activities - from student pranks to protest marches, and of course going to the local student bar. Some students enjoy punting (I myself am quite partial to it), or yacht racing, or running, or riding, or religion, or rappelling, or indeed any number of things beginning with R - and many more besides. We can include a section on what 18-21 year old students in different countries and different universities do when they aren't studying, as it's no doubt a huge part of student life. One of these sections would be on student japes - and therein lies the perfect spot for our picture, as a classic example of a stereotypical student. Hawker Typhoon 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is veering dangerously close to petty nitpicking now, so I feel that here it is appropriate to go back to the beginning and address each point that has been made for the removal of the image, followed by a concise summary of each counter-argument.

Argument one: The picture is idiotic, and only illustrates a moron (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: A Wikipedia editor's own opinion on the mental capability of a person in a photograph does not constitute a valid reason for that image's removal.

Argument two: The picture is one of only two images in the article and ought to be part of a more balanced set of images (Dbiel).

Rebuttal: Since this point was made, the amount of images in the article has increased to represent a wider and more balanced view of the many facets of student life.

Argument three: Not everyone who is a student engages in childish pranks (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: It has not been asserted that all students engage in childish pranks. It has, however, been asserted that this is a notably significant aspect of student life, much like being a member of a society, or going on pub crawls.

Argument four: Playing pranks are not part of Scott 110's life, even though he is a student (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: Similar to point three, it has never been asserted that all students engage in playing pranks, or that only activities in which all students engage are notable enough for inclusion.

Argument five: There is no formal study which provides data on student mischief (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: Since this claim was made, information from a study providing data on student mischief, specifically with regards to the theft of traffic cones, has been added to the relevant section of the article.

Argument six: The picture doesn't demonstrate a prank being committed (Scott 110; J Milburn; aviper2k7).

Rebuttal: We have defined a prank using numerous dictionaries as "clowning around", "dressing showily", or perpetrating a "ludicrous act... for fun and amusement". The image in question would appear to perfectly illustrate all of these definitions. Furthermore, the content of the article section in question is not limited strictly to pranks, but to student misbehaviour and petty criminal acts in general.

Argument seven: The image is unencyclopedic (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: Scott 110 claims that the image is "unencyclopedic", but so far, even though specifically requested, a definition of "unencyclopedic" has not been given. Furthermore, Scott 110 would seem to have contradicted himself by adding the image to a second article.

Argument eight: Two people have currently "voted" to remove the image, whilst one person (Yeanold Viskersenn) has apparently "voted" to keep it (Dbiel).

Rebuttal: Decisions involving Wikipedia content are not made using votes (the process would be remarkably easy to sabotage), but rather informed discussion until all issues are addressed and a conclusion reached.

I have deleted argument eight for the following reasons: 1) it has already been stated by me that I was in error using the term "vote" when the proper term is consensus. 2) By miss quoting the original author (Dbiel) Yeanold Viskersenn has inadvertantly distorted the facts, by the insertion of "myself" is unclear who is being refered to. As written it implies the original auuthor, when in reality it is a reference to the quoting author. Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel, I would thank you not to tamper with my post entries again, and urge you to consult WP:DISCUSSION, specifically the section which reads "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission.", and also as you post has interrupted my entry, "please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption". In response to your suggestion that I have distorted the facts, I have edited the content of my post slightly to read "Yeanold Viskersenn" as opposed to "myself". I hope that this quells any worry with regards to the issue, and prevents any further tampering with my entries.Yeanold Viskersenn 12:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Argument nine: The theft and misuse of traffic cones is not worth mentioning in comparison with the pranksterism that occurs at MIT (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: It has been shown, with numerous citations, as well as statistics from a scientific survey that Scott 110 himself requested, that traffic cone theft plays a significant part of student life - 20% of students possess a stolen traffic cone - far more than the percentage of students who attend MIT, let alone engage in pranksterism there.

Argument ten: The article is about students, not student pranks (Scott 110; J Milburn).

Rebuttal: This is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry, and therefore it is expected that the article will discuss many facets of studenthood in depth, including, work, extra-curricular activity, leisure, and even crime.

Argument eleven: The subject of student traffic cone theft should be documented in the article about traffic cones, but not about students (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: In this argument, Scott 110 concedes that the topic is indeed notable to be covered in Wikipedia, but does not explain why (apart from the fact that "he thinks") it should be covered in detail only in the traffic cone article, and merely mentioned in a passing reference in the article section which is specifically about student pranksterism and crime.

Argument twelve: The image confuses people into thinking a student means someone (likely a young, immature adult) attending college (Scott 110).

Rebuttal: I would argue that that the image does not confuse people into thinking this, any more than an image of Pikachu in the Pokémon article would confuse people into thinking that all Pokémon are smooth and yellow. If this should be the case, then the best remedy would be the inclusion of a broader range of images - precisely what has been done, and already covered in my rebuttal of argument two.

After this, the discussion descends somewhat into a game of statistics badminton between Scott 110 and HawkerTyphoon, with little valuable insight with regards to the inclusion of the image. Feel free to add further argument if you think I've missed anything out. To the best of my knowledge I have responded to all the arguments so far given, and must conclude that I still see no grounds for the removal of a free image which precisely depicts the section of the article in question. Yeanold Viskersenn 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point you have missed is that the specific discussion of traffic cones is not frightfully relevent to this article on students, but is much more so on a discussion on traffic cones. Look at it this way- in my village there is a lot of controversy over local wind turbines, but there is not a single mention of that on the article on wind turbines. Just because something deserves to be mentioned in one place, doesn't mean that it does everywhere. No one is arguing against a section on pranks, and it is only you who thinks that this image is appropriate in a section on pranks as a whole. J Milburn 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here I will address the new arguments that have been brought into the discussion.

Argument thirteen: The specific discussion of students stealing traffic cones should be discussed only in the article about traffic cones, and not in the article about students, especially given that the article about Askam and Ireth contains a section about turbine controversy and the wind turbine article does not (J Milburn).

Rebuttal: The argument that the article about your village (A sociological topic) contains information about a controversy involving wind turbines, and the article about wind turbines (A topic about inanimate objects used to aid society) does not would seem, if anything, to correlate with my view that the article about students (a sociological issue) contains information about a controversy involving a culture of petty crime most recognisably personified by traffic cone misuse, and the article about traffic cones (A topic about inanimate objects used to aid society), until recently, did not. Using this system of logic, it is equally arguable that the specific discussion of students is not relevant on an article about traffic cones.

Argument fourteen: The only person who does not want the image deleted is Yeanold Viskersenn (J Milburn).

Rebuttal: It is clear by merely reading this discussion that I am not the only person in favour of retention of the article, Hawker Typhoon being another supporter. Also, see argument eight - decisions on Wikipedia are not made using a system of democratic vote, for obvious reasons - this could hypothetically be a debate between me and several sockpuppets (not that I believe it is).

Its obvious while Yeanold claims he has honest intentions, he obviously only wants his picture on this article - he really doesn't seem to care about the theft of traffic cones and is using that to justify keeping the picture. Otherwise he would have reverted the entire section on traffic cone theft as well. Removed picture again. Scott 110 13:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly protest the accusation that I do not have honest intentions with the regards to the welfare and improvement of this article. May I advise you study WP:AGF and refrain from accusing others of bad faith, as this can count as a "form of personal attack". Secondly, the section on traffic cone theft has been returned to the article, rendering your argument invalid in the first place. Yeanold Viskersenn 13:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we take this to the next level and get some kind of dispute resolution process going here. Your attempts to talk about traffic cone theft in an article about students does not make sense, and contrary to your claims, there is an obvious conflict of interest here - why else would someone be so adamant about traffic cone theft?Scott 110 13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I implore you to read up on WP:AGF, as your responses seem to have been reduced to attempting to question my motive, as opposed to the validity of my rebuttals to the fourteen arguments described above. Besides, your last point can just as easily be reversed to ask "why would someone be so adamant about traffic cone theft". I am choosing to assume good faith on your part and addressing only Wikipedia's guidelines about article improvement and conduct. I would hope that all parties involved could do the same. As for your suggestion of dispute resolution, that is a thoroughly valid avenue of approach, and is the only part of your last post that I do not take umbrage with. Yeanold Viskersenn 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been two days since the last message posted in this discussion thread, and there has still not been an irrefutable reason posted for why this image should not be used (it is a free image that clearly illustrates a given example of its subject, and all claims to the contrary have so far been addressed above) I am going to go ahead and put the image back into the article in the appropriate section. I would suggest that it is not removed until a consensus is reached that decides otherwise, as it was included in the article when this discussion began. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User Scott 110 is deleting the image claiming in his edit summary that the image must be removed because it is "favoured for removal by the majority". All participants in this debate should understand that majority rule is not the way decisions are made in Wikipedia (and even if it was, the majority of active participants in the discussion favouring removal is a paltry 3:2). According to WP:CON, if no consensus is thus reached, disputed changes to an article are returned to their original state before the dispute was raised (in this case, before the image in question was deleted) until consensus is reached. Removing the image repeatedly before a consensus has been reached is a breach of WP:CON. If it is done after reading this then I would suggest that this is an intentional breach of WP:CON, something to bear in mind. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Being as another two days have passed without my above points being contested, I will now place the free image that clearly illustrates a given example of its subject back into the article, with the expectation that it be left there in accordance with the guideline from WP:CON explained above.Yeanold Viskersenn 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply the the most recent article edit: Discussion may have slowed down, but I would not say that it is over, and no concensus has yet been reached as to the fitness of this image in this article. As far as its usage in Student prank, that does not seem to be in debate, but in this article, we are no closer to a concensus that when we stated. I am going to revert the last edit simply on the basis of the edit summary "Image added - the discussion seems to be over!" as this statement is invalid. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My take is delete that picture or move it to an article on pranks. If that person really wants to keep his picture from being deleted, than do just that. That picture is not encyclopedic for thjis articel. This article should be on the academics and other stuff surrounding students and not pranks. Mr. C.C. 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image

I am reverting the recent addition of the image back into the article on the grounds that the reason given for restoring it is invalid

(User:Scott_110's attempt to remove this image via RFC was unsuccessful, so the image is being restored.)

The RFC failed because it was an attempt to remove the image from Wikipedia. The image is still in article Student prank, Prank, Traffic cone. It does not belong in this article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim the reason for restoring it is invalid and that the image does not belong in this article. There has been absolutely no consensus that this is the case, so my re-adding the image to the article is equally as legitimate as your removal of it. Being as the image was originally in the article when this discussion began, technically it should still be there, rather than the state of the article after the disputed removal being kept as the status quo. See policy quoted above. Yeanold Viskersenn 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Invalid link?

I question the following:

Statistics show that one in five students is in possession a stolen traffic cone. http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/Browning/signs.html

(ref tag removed for easier followup) It is an interesting article but I do not see how it supports the statement. I did not delete the link incase I am simply unable to see the reference. Could someone else confirm if the link does or does not support the claim? Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The link would appear to support the claim, in that it contains the quote "The student with a traffic cone in their room, and statistics tell us that every fifth student has one (more amongst biochemists)" (Granted the word "stolen" is not used but theft is implied earlier in the article and I can hardly imagine a significant amount of those students possess legally acquired street furniture). The sentence you cite above was not intended to be taken as a direct quote from the citation. Yeanold Viskersenn 12:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you re-read the article that the link goes to. I have read it 3 times and can not find any reference to "students and traffic cones". My quess is that you posted the wrong link. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is entitled "You Talking To Me?" by Guardian columnist Guy Browning. The subsection "Figures and Animals", specifically paragraph four, addresses the issue of the student theft of street furniture, and includes the statistic cited above. As far as I can see, the link to this article is correct. Yeanold Viskersenn 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it appears I posted the wrong link for the wrong comment. I am going to strike out this entire section and start over. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to this subject and getting my references and subjects straight, the reason I started this section is the reference does not meet Wikipedia standards for a references. Yes it is the source of the statement, but that statement is not supported in the article. The only thing we know is that Guy Browning claims: "The student with a traffic cone in their room, and statistics tell us that every fifth student has one (more amongst biochemists), is subliminally saying that their bedroom is a potential health hazard and a place you should avoid." There is nothing in the article to support that claim. Because one person said it and it was published does not make it true. We do know that the article appeared in a UK publication The Guardian, June 9, 2001 and the copyright is held by Guy Browning. I am going to delete the sentence and reference as undocumented and unsupported but not as Original Research as it is a direct quote and possible (but not likely due to the limited nature of the quote) copyright violation. This is an article about students in general, not simply some unspecificed group of United Kingdom (unsupport assumption based on the limited information available as atated above) students. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing, the following link used to support the issue has been taken totally out of context. the entire quote reads:

Veronica King, NUS vice-president welfare, said: "We have moved on from the outdated stereotypes of students stealing traffic cones and going on rowdy pub crawls.

"These days students are more likely to be found working behind the bar than in front of it."

If we are going to use a reference, lets try to keep it in context and not reverse its actual meaning simply to try to prove a point. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement is saying that the concept of students stealing traffic cones is no longer valid, - outdated. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with another reference for the following:

A recent report by Student Direct claims that the theft of traffic cones in the greater Manchester area is at an all time high.[25]( http://www.manchester.com/student/News-cone.php ), we find that this is also somewhat taken out of context. There is no reference to the problem be related to students but rather to youth.

"The wearing of traffic cones in Manchester is proving to be a status symbol for the youth of the city. This replaces pervious hobbies of rowing and picnics."

It is also reference a rather small geographic area Manchester, England; hardly representative of students in general. If we which to document and support student pranks, they should related to students not youth. Do you think it is safe to say that school dropouts are more likely to be the source such problems than students in general (not to say that students would not be involved as I as sure they would contribute to the problem) So far the only thing I have seen in the provided references is the parts of England have a serious problem with trafic cones being stolen by youth. This hardly belongs in a artilce about students and is a very poor example of student pranks which does have a place in the article but also needs improvement. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the problem is most likely due to students, but as you say the article does not reference this. On closer inspection, the article is in fact parodic anyway so should certainly be removed as a reference. I shall remove it now. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article

It would appear that Yeanold Viskersenn may have found the solution to our problem.

He has created a new article Student prank. What is not needed now, is the entire content of one article quoted within a second article. In this case Student prank quoted in its entirity within Student. Just not to be miss understood, Student prank was copied from Student, which by the way was an excellent idea. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good...its about time he came to his senses and removed that stupid picture from this page. The next step is to expand on that article (putting traffic cones on your head is just being idiotic, its not a prank)...but that another battle for another time.Scott 110 22:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that now there is a dedicated article about student pranks, this article does not need to be as thorough. I have restored a couple of sentences from the previous incarnation of the article as I feel a complete rewrite from scratch was not necessary. I would like to point out with regards to Scott 110's quote that "putting traffic cones on your head is just being idiotic, its not a prank", a prank is defined by Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory as "acting like a clown or buffoon" and "dressing showily" - a definition that I think is precisely epitomised by the donning of a pilfered traffic cone. I would also politely request that Scott 110 to be more courteous in his replies, as I have been offended by the tone of several of his comments towards me, including, but not restricted to "Nobody wants this gayass picture so fak [sic] off". Yeanold Viskersenn 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not need the same picture in two separate articles. Please consider removing it from this article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also please consider removing the entire section regarding traffic cones. It adds little, if any thing to this article, is a poor example of a student prank, but it does make sense to include in the separate article about Student pranks (which, by the way, you have already done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no restrictions regarding having a picture in two seperate articles. In fact, the top picture in the article features in seven other articles, so that is a null issue. Who's to say that the person reading this article is also going to read the other one?

Secondly, The traffic cone section has already been removed. All that remains is a passing reference used as an example, and I strongly attest (as I have in great detail several times above) that not only is it a notable example, but one that perfectly epitomises the entire subject. Ask your average Joe what demographic they think of when they see someone with a traffic cone on their head, and I would wager a large amount of money that "student" would be their response. I also imagine that traffic cone theft is a far more common prank than, for instance, mascot defacement, although I believe that both examples are worthy of mention. Further discussion with regards to the image should occur in the relevant section above. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed image as the section it pertains to is too small to warrant a picture. Further the picture is on the borderline of what a "prank" is, therefore it is removed again.Scott 110 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Scott 110, Could you please provide a reference from the WP guidelines which rules, or even insinuates whatsoever that part of an article must be of a minimum size before it is allowed to be accompanied by a picture? Secondly, could you please refrain from removing the image as per what I have said above with regards to the rules stated in WP:CON, which you are now flagrantly contradicting. Thirdly, the term "prank" has been defined very clearly above by Princeton University's Cognitive Science Laboratory, no less - and is illustrated more than sufficiently by the image that you are repeatedly deleting in breach of Wikipedia protocol of which you have been specifically notified and are choosing to ignore. I'm extremely sorry to be so blunt but it seems my message isn't getting across as well as I feel it ought. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is in dispute so stop getting mad when things don't go your way. Also no rule is being violated here, and neither has a consensus been reached. In regards to it illustrating a "prank"...I don't see how it does. How do we know you (or the "subject" of the picture) actually stole the traffic cone? Since you also have a broom in your hand, maybe you (or the "subject" of the picture) is just a janitor who is drunk/high. Really this does not show anything other than a guy with a dirty traffic cone on his head with a broom. Scott 110 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your claim that no rule is being violated, I once again suggest that you read what I have written above in reference to WP:CON (having a read through WP:AGF, WP:DICK and WP:CIV may also provide some insight). I have never claimed that a consensus was reached, which is precisely why the image should remain in place, as it was, until a consensus is reached.

Your argument that there is no proof the cone is stolen can easily be reversed to ask the opposite. A traffic cone that is inside a block of student flats as opposed to in a road has quite clearly, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, been stolen. Perhaps, as you strangely suggest, it has been purchased legally with the intent to be used as a sensible item of clothing. I, as the creator of this work, can assure you in good faith that this is not the case and even if it were, the content of the image of itself would remain exactly the same - which leads me to disregard your last argument in its entirety. The story behind an image does not change what is visible in the image. Also, I have never claimed that I am the subject of the picture or that I stole a traffic cone, and again, my being, or not being, in the photograph is irrelevant to this discussion. Yeanold Viskersenn 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I must add in my two cents worth...I agree that the image and section should be removed. As an encyclopedia, the article about Student should expand from the first paragraph or outline which is based upon...Student: A person who studies a particular academic subject from studere, to study. There should be a format to follow to produce an article which one expects to find in an encyclopedia, such as the guidelines given so that articles may achieve...featured article status There is an article which may help List of University of Saskatchewan alumni. This article lists students who have successfully completed studies and received an award such as a degree, or diploma, as well as the types of degrees available.SriMesh | talk 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As User:SriMesh says - the article should expand from the first paragraph or outline which it is based upon - and this is what it does. It should NOT expand purely on the definition as defined by the etymology of the word. It has been clearly shown above that student pranks are a significant part of student life. Such a broad, entirely student-based topic is certainly worthy of note. If we were only to include information directly related to studying itself then an enormous amount of information in this article (eg hazing, freshers' week, freshers' flu, fraternities, sororities etc) would have to be removed. I can't see that a reason has been given as to why student pranks should be singled out for removal.Yeanold Viskersenn 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the section on Student pranks should not be removed, but its scope should be limited covering only the broad areas of the subject rather than getting into specific instances, leaving the expanded data for insertion into the Student prank article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 08:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Student japes for deletion

The image has been nominated for deletion, due it not clearly portraying a prank in progress. Please follow the discussion link on the image's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_24 Scott 110 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asserted and argued numerous times above that it does clearly portray a prank in progress. These arguments have mostly been ignored. Apart from this, the image is used in numerous other articles than this particular one, so deleting the image is entirely unnecessary. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The request to remove the image from Wikipedia is totally off base. Yes there is a debate regarding its use in this article, and I personally favor its removal; but that does not justify requesting the deletion of the image itself. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The results of the deletion request, nominated by User:Scott_110, have been finalised, and the otherwise unanimous verdict was that the image should not be deleted:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Student japes.jpg

Image:Student japes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yeanold Viskersenn (notify | contribs).

• UE, used on the Students page to illustrate a student "prank", however does not clearly show that a student prank is in progress. — Scott 110 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I'm involved in the debate (and therefore am biased), the image clearly shows a student involved in a 'jape' or a prank, which we have proved using an argument that Scott ignores. It has been clearly shown that it does show a prank as defined by the very dictionary that he has used himself in a citation. There's an edit war of sorts going on here, and I don't think Scott's idea of moving it onto this page is following in the spirit of dispute resolution. I think we should keep the debate to the article talk page until it's settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs)

Comment No, you haven't proved anything. The fact that you are taking a definition and attempting to apply it to the picture does not "prove" an argument at all. Your interpretation is loose, at best.Scott 110 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the creator of this image, I will refrain from giving my opinion on the matter - but feel I must point out that this image (which already features in several other articles) is part of an ongoing debate over at Talk:student, and I believe the deletion request may be unduly influenced by User:Scott_110's involvement in this debate. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This request to delete the image is complete off base and should be ignored. There is a debate going on regarding the removal of the image from the Student article, but that does not justify requesting the total removal of the image itself which is being used without objection in other articles. By the way, I do not particularly like the image myself (POV) but that should have no bearing on the removal of the image from Wikipedia. User:Scott_110 is total off base with this request. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - If you think the image does not belong in the article, then seek consensus for its removal and if you get that, remove the image. It might then be deleted anyway as an orphan. Otherwise, this is a free image which does not depict anything offensive and does not otherwise breach Wikipedia image requirements. Euryalus 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Kept. These are editorial decisions best left to the respective articles' talk pages. howcheng {chat} 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Yeanold Viskersenn 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of quoting this entire debate. It has nothing to do with this article and in fact simply states that the request to delete the image from Wikipedia is rejected and that the discussion regarding its use in any specific article should be discussed on that article's discussion page. Nothing included in the copied discussion has any bearing on the issue of the use of the image in this article. I also removed the improper adding of this talk page to Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was nominated because of its use in the article, and this page's discussion is partly continued in the IFD discussion. I felt this was relevant and thus placed it here so that all relevant discussion is in the same place. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gramatical and Organizational Improvement.

I'd like to reccomend that this article be tagged for improvement of both its gramatical quality and its overall structure. There should be a section on world history of students, right up to the modern variations between national education systems. There should also be a section on the modern financial difficulties faced by students seeking higher education, as that is one of the most universal issues facing students today.

Student pranks should probably be a subheading within a student life section, as it is not generally a main component of, "being a student." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.36.174 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge -- Gunner (student)

As mentioned while closing the afd of Gunner (student) as no consensus, the merge option was undiscussed but may be an alternative. This was my thought while closing this AfD but as it was undiscussed I've left it up to the editors of these articles to decide and the closure of the AfD should have no additional bearing on this discussion beyond facilitating the discussion. Gnangarra 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no additional discussion on the subject in either talk page, I am going to go ahead and merge Gunner (student) into this article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

False justified delete of traffic cone image, see above also

Dbiel remoing image with claim:

' Deleted prank image one more time. see extensive discussion page entries '

I can not see here there is consensus for DELETE so spurious claim - dbiel. THIS CONSENSUS must reach before DELELTE. dbiel also said to start with:

' If there were a more balanced set of images representing students as a whole, then I could see leaving this one in. But as it is now, I feel that it should be deleted. '

his wish was granted and he still deletes image repeatingly without argument and missidrection. so what is dbiel your final argument for DELETE? other wise stop vandalism NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.47.130 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed bold subject heading under "Merge -- Gunner (student)" as this post has nothing to do with that topic. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If we have to start this debate over one more time, so be it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Student japes.jpg

As it appears we are back to discussing the use of Image:Student japes.jpg in this article again; I will try to briefly summarize the history of the debate.

It started with an edit war between Yeanold Viskersenn who uploaded the image in the first place and Scott 110. I started the discussion on this talk page back on 14 July 2007.

Concensus was impossible. The author of the image wanting to keep it and two other users wanting it removed.

In response to a helpme tag Vassyana stated:

If you need assistance settling a content dispute, please seek dispute resolution.

J Milburn joined the discussion ending with the statement:

I would say that this image is inappropriate for the use intended for it here, and should remain removed.

Hawker Typhoon joined the discussion on the side of keeping the image.

Yeanold Viskersenn then took step that looked like it might resolve the issue by creating a new linked article Student prank and using the image there as well as adding it to article Traffic cone and to Prank

Mr. C.C. joined briefly stating:

My take is delete that picture or move it to an article on pranks.

Scott 110 then started a mis guided attempt to have the image deleted from Wikipedia as the image was being used without question in two other articles.

The discussion came to a close in early August with the image no longer appearing in article Student

The discussion began again October 27, 2007 Yeanold Viskersenn inserted the image back into the article.

SriMesh joined the discussion stating:

I agree that the image and section should be removed....

The image was again removed from the article. It is clear that no consensus has been reached regarding this image. During November/December that has be a bit of an edit war between myself (Dbiel) and several unregistered users who have restore the image on a few occasions.

I will close the summary at this point noting again that no concensus has been reached. The next step would be to look for some conflict resolution. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But look in your summary there is NO ARGUMENT GIVEN AT ALL FOR REMOVE, only listing fraction of quotes from people... read up the REASONS GIVEN FOR KEEP and there is much stronger argument for this, why is your rule different for this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Student.JPG which got in to qrticle no questions asked - ALSO A PICTURE OF A GLASGOW STUDENT DRESSED FOR FUN... hmmm it seems there is double standard in image acceptance comeing from some parties....

This was a brief summary and it indicates 5 registered users who felt that the image should not be used in this article and only 2 registered users who want it in the article. If consensus was the same as voting (which it is not) it would be a clear indication that the image does not belong in this article. If you want to know why, take the time and read this discussion page from the beginning to the end. As for the other image you have refered to, it is a totally different subject and for the record I think it should be deleted as well, but that discussion has not even been started and differs in the fact that it is not also used in a separate linked article.Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! That idiotic picture has finally been removed. All that blood and sweat paid off! Scott 110 (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gunner POV

The remarks about "gunners" seem to be unreasonably negative. Whether or not a student is "overly competitive" is subjective and it is probably reasonable to leave it as is. However it also suggests that the answers that "gunners" volunteer are usually incorrect which I don't think is the case. Many student are simply dedicated, and do know the answers; they may be considered "gunners" by those who are not as dedicated. Those "gunners" who are also ignorant of the subject matter are probrably in the minority. 142.13.25.238 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What?

"The term pupil (originally a Latin term for a small dick guardian etc.) is used in kill primary and secondary schools instead of "micheal", but once attending higher education such as sixth-form college etc, the term "student" is standard."

Looks like vandalism. 128.210.12.39 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What most important things for Students?

--1105김상희 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Students are studying every day.

All students happy????

They want to play sometimes very very... They need free. It is not studying the most impertant thing for students.

Equipment Section

"Students often make notes in exercise books, which in MYP and IB schools may be replaced by DWs."

I don't understand a single one of those abbreviations, except IB which I think might be International Baccaularate (or however you spell it, I'm not entirely sure). Is there someone who does know what they are and could clarify? Douglas 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs)

Outdated: names of German prep school students

The words Sextaner, Quintaner, Quartaner, Untertertianer, Obertertianer, Untersekundaner, Obersekundaner, Unterprimaner, Oberprimaner in this table are outdated. According to

Wikipedia deutsch: Jahrgangsstufe

they were abolished by the German ministers for education in the Kultusministerkonferenz in 1964 by the Hamburger Abkommen (Abkommen = agreement).

To people in Germany especially school kids nowadays most of them are largely unknown or uncommon at least as far as I can tell from my own personal experience living in Germany.

The recent system is:

• Klasse 1–4: Primarstufe (Grundschule, in Berlin and Brandenburg up to Klasse 6)
• Klasse 5–10: Sekundarstufe I (Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium), for Gymnasium = "Unterstufe (5-7) and Mittelstufe (8-10)"
• Klasse 11–13: Sekundarstufe II (Gymnasium/gymnasiale Oberstufe, Reformierte Oberstufe, berufsbildende Schule)

[6]

The Oberprima might still be known to some people due to its mention in the old German motion picture Die Feuerzangenbowle (1944 film) which has recently reached a certain Cult film status:

"Herr Kollege, Sie haben meine Oberprima vergiftet."(headmaster: "Herr Kollege, you've poisened my Oberprima.")
"Ich wollte nur die alkoholische Gärung -"(teacher: "But the alcoholic fermentation was the only thing I intended ...")
"Meine schöne Oberprima vergiftet!" (headmaster: "My beautiful Oberprima poisoned!")

So, if you are looking for a pupil at a German school by looking for the "Untertertianer Leon" or the "Untertertianerin Lena" you might cause some confusion. To look for the "Achtklässlerin Lena" or the "Achtklässler Leon" could potentially be much more successful.

Hanna-Emilia (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

TFOWR 16:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As all the usual arguments apply, we should remove "UK and I" heading? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Student. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080927065352/http://www.dailycal.org:80/article.php?id=10351 to http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=10351

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} 02:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Student. 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/20070927223648/http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070614-PEjc-prank.338b9df.html to http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070614-PEjc-prank.338b9df.html

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) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• LDAI 2002.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• LDAI 2002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)