Revision as of 23:04, 20 January 2013 editElKevbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,467 edits →Boosterism removal: Supported by sources? Fine. Unsupported? Not fine.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:06, 20 January 2013 edit undoElKevbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,467 edits →Boosterism removal: Enough. You've both made your points now move on.Next edit → | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:::::: Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. ] (]) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::: Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. ] (]) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Good grief! ''"Yawn"???'' Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= ] 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::::Good grief! ''"Yawn"???'' Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= ] 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Enough. You've both made your points now move on. ] (]) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:If those statements are supported by sources or are summaries of slightly longer, well-sourced sections then they're fine. If they're unsourced then they are indeed very minor forms of puffery but only because they're unsourced (in which case they can be removed on that basis without even bothering to decide if it's puffery, POV, etc.). ] (]) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | :If those statements are supported by sources or are summaries of slightly longer, well-sourced sections then they're fine. If they're unsourced then they are indeed very minor forms of puffery but only because they're unsourced (in which case they can be removed on that basis without even bothering to decide if it's puffery, POV, etc.). ] (]) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:06, 20 January 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cornell University article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Cornell University is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 7, 2008 and October 7, 2011. |
Help
I am a student at Cornell University currently working on developing a Wiki page for Ithaca Bakeries. I was wondering if you would mind looking over what we had already or would be interested in linking our page to yours. Here is the page under construction now: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jrb374/Ithaca_Bakery_and_Collegetown_Bagels --Sckim125 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Boosterism removal
These are examples of academic boosterism.
- Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.
- Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.
The claims make conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources used, and include weasels and puffery. On Misplaced Pages, claims should be fully substantiated and stated simply and neutrally.
Despite clearly noting this issue in the edit history, Johnny Squeaky is insistent on keeping these claims. The only argument he has offered in support for keeping them is that he believes they are true, which is irrelevant to the issue. --Coolbb (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're taking this a little far. The comments are no different than on many university wiki articles. As "boosterism", it's exceptionally tame, *IF* it even qualifies as that.
Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.
- This is a factual statement.
Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.
- This, too, is a factual statement. References can be found, but until then, maybe I'll add the template. I mean seriously, simply because a ref needs to be found has exactly zip to do with "boosterism", and these statement hardly qualify if at all. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The sentences don't really add much value to the encyclopedia, and Misplaced Pages:Avoid academic boosterism invites us to "assert facts, not opinions" and to "avoid vague terms of praise" in pursuit of establishing a NPOV. Saying the university "is usually ranked" well is weak prose, as is saying "many of Cornell's schools" rank well . —Eustress 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- First, there are many short sentences in many Wiki articles that "really don't add much", which is clearly a subjective statement in any case. However...
- The sentences don't really add much value to the encyclopedia, and Misplaced Pages:Avoid academic boosterism invites us to "assert facts, not opinions" and to "avoid vague terms of praise" in pursuit of establishing a NPOV. Saying the university "is usually ranked" well is weak prose, as is saying "many of Cornell's schools" rank well . —Eustress 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Saying that something us "usually ranked..." at a certain level is not a random opinion. Likewise, pointing out that Cornell's various colleges/departments are consistently ranked at a certain level is not a random opinion, but rather a statement of something that exists as a fact or in this case some type of ranking or evaluation by a known and respected publication or organization that does such rankings. All that is missing is a proper reference, which can almost certainly be found. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- This game of parroting rankings to the point of undue influence within the article (above and beyond the fact they're statistical abstractions that are trivially gamed) and introducing peacock words into the article ignores the desperate need for attention to other glaring holes in the article. For instance, is there an undergraduate core curriculum that students take, or do they simply learn whatever's ranked highly in a magazine? I'm of the opinion the ranking section could be removed in its entirety and the quality of the article would actually be improved. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your view is classic POV. Rankings are a matter of public record just like every other subjective thing at Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry if you have a personal problem with Ivy League schools, that's your issue. I attended the University of Oregon, a public school. But I'm not carrying any chips about those more fortunate than I who went to the "snooty" schools, and your issues have no relevance here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good grief! "Yawn"??? Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Enough. You've both made your points now move on. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good grief! "Yawn"??? Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your view is classic POV. Rankings are a matter of public record just like every other subjective thing at Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry if you have a personal problem with Ivy League schools, that's your issue. I attended the University of Oregon, a public school. But I'm not carrying any chips about those more fortunate than I who went to the "snooty" schools, and your issues have no relevance here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This game of parroting rankings to the point of undue influence within the article (above and beyond the fact they're statistical abstractions that are trivially gamed) and introducing peacock words into the article ignores the desperate need for attention to other glaring holes in the article. For instance, is there an undergraduate core curriculum that students take, or do they simply learn whatever's ranked highly in a magazine? I'm of the opinion the ranking section could be removed in its entirety and the quality of the article would actually be improved. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- If those statements are supported by sources or are summaries of slightly longer, well-sourced sections then they're fine. If they're unsourced then they are indeed very minor forms of puffery but only because they're unsourced (in which case they can be removed on that basis without even bothering to decide if it's puffery, POV, etc.). ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Higher education articles
- WikiProject Higher education articles
- B-Class Qatar articles
- Low-importance Qatar articles
- WikiProject Qatar articles
- Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2011)