Talk:Bucknell University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion

It is wrong to classify Bucknell as belonging to a fictious organization, and writing that it, in the minds of many, is comparable to certain institutions is not encyclopedic.

Where was it written that Bucknell belonged to a fictitious organization? – Mipadi 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It used to say that Bucknell is a so-called public "Ivy" and is concidered by many to be comparable to Dartmouth, Williams, and Colgate.

What's "fictitious", though? – Mipadi 21:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the "public Ivy" grouping, which would be erroneous anyway since Bucknell is a private school. ShaleZero 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Top place to hookup

Head for the benches above Freas Hall if you're looking for long-term love...

Legend has it, that if a couple kisses here at sunset they will get married someday.

from the College Prowler guidebook, Bucknell University - Off the Record

I went to college here, and I never heard that. It does give a beautiful vantage of the sunset, however. stubblyhead | ^T/_c 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of that either. Oddly enough, the legend is true for me. Of course, it is a nice quiet place to watch a wonderful sunset. Given that a staggering amount of Bucknellians wed other Bucknellians, this is not a surprise to me. 151.198.54.151 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that legend is often quoted on tours of the university. – Mipadi 17:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes Section Links (likely others) - Not Found Errors

All links to Bucknell site in the Notes Section are now invalid. The site location has been changed. I did not verify other links in the article, but I assume since the Bucknell site location has changed many of the links pointing to the Bucknell site in it's article could have been changed. I'm not familiar with this site i.e. I could not determine what was intended, nor how/where to find the new links. Were link locations, page names changed? Are some specific pages relocated etc. ?? I was not equipped to properly identify and repair these problems.

A utility to verify links on the article would be helpful. Does anyone know of such a tool?

I will gladly assist with these corrections, but persons with more understanding of these links (than I have) needs to be involved.Chauqg 13:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can offer some aid, as I am actually a web developer at Bucknell University, and thus intimately familiar with the site (I did, in fact, help move some of the pages). Basically, the University got a new content management system that changed all of the page URLs.

I think it would be a good time to clean out some of the external links, though. Do we really need so many links to individual departments? Seems like the links to the main page would suffice. – Mipadi 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Student government link

I removed the link to the student government but that has been reverted and the link readded. I ask, making reference to the appropriate policy, how this link adds to the reader's understanding of Bucknell University? What unique and interesting information is at that website that is not in or can not be added to the article? Please note that the mere fact that the link is for an organization associated with Bucknell is entirely insufficient as that opens this up to being a mere directory of links.

I also object to the manner in which my edit was reverted as there were uncontroversial edits also caught up in the blind reversion. The edit summary also implied that I removed the link because it was "overbearing" or because three links is "too many." That's not only false and slightly insulting but the external links policy clearly states that "a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." So by extension "it's only one link what's the harm?" is not a valid reason to add or retain this link. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, don't take a revert so personally. I fully believe your edit was in good faith, however; I disagreed with the edit and reverted it. Wikipedia revert guidelines are somewhat vague, so I wouldn't get too caught up in that, but i'm happy to discuss it here. Anyways, as an alumni of the University, I find it important that a mention of the student government be made. It is not in the main body of the article, despite being an integral part of the University and student life. As such, I find it relevant content, that complies with WP:EL, seeing as that page is a guideline, not a policy. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not content - it's a link tossed onto the end of the article with no context or explanation. If the article is missing some crucial info the correct response is to add the information, not a single link that doesn't tell readers anything. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kappa Delta Rho is no longer active on the Bucknell campus.

Kappa Delta Rho has been suspended for the next few years, for personal conduct issues and repeated building code violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.92.26 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I can't say I'm surprised. I'll fix the article. JazzMan 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Links and other edits

It looks like there are several of us watching this page pretty carefully. I've been adding to the links at the bottom for a pretty specific reason, and would like to see them returned. Some programs here at Bucknell are not particularly well known. Links included on Wikipedia are often picked up and propagated on the web, leading to better scores for particular google searches. This is why links to the the performing arts and environmental programs are important to have here. That and they really don't hurt anything. So if no one objects, I'm going to put them back.

Also, the Department of Theatre and Dance and the Department of Music are the correct names, meaning the comma version is not. Benthos

I made that change (commas), due only to standard grammar concerns, not intimate knowledge of those departments. If it misrepresented the departments' names, my apologies. Feel free to fix. Baccyak4H 02:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I realized after commenting that I had written "programs" not departments. Your edits are fine with me. Benthos 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Couple points. One, what's the justification for including certain links and not others? If we have one departmental link, should we have them all? If we have one program link, should we have them all? Is not having them all biased?

It would be great to have links to all departments. I don't want to put them up though, so if you do, I won't complain. That's the beauty of this site - if people want to add information on their idosincratic interests, they can. The world can catch up later. We could propose to Bucknell PR people to take control of the Wikipedia page, but that would be a shame... Benthos 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the External Links are supposed to be helpful, not raise awareness on little-known programs or help increase page hits. Why link to a little-known department? It's probably obscure for a reason. – Mipadi 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What's up with being a smart aleck about this? We've got some world class people at Bucknell in a lot of places (e.g., Jackson Hill in Music - Grammy award nominee.) Trying to let the world know that our strengths are not just in Engineering and football - oops, women's track - is hardly a sin. I think the links are useful and important and if you want to delete them, I'll just keep adding them back. My apologies for being too honest about my motives. Benthos 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So why, then, do we link to some pages, but not others?

Here's my question about some of the links. What's so amazing about the Theatre and Dance Department, and Music Department, that they're linked, but not links to all the engineering departments, which are even better known and have notable faculty as well? Why is the environment center linked when it's simply not a huge deal, especially when compared to other on-campus resources? Why is the basketball team's page not linked?

If they're linked for good reason, fine—but "raising awareness" and page hits is not a good reason and is not Wikipedia's mission. – Mipadi 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the academic info already comes off dangerously close to sounding like a prospective student brochure, that is, advertising. I object to any calculation that involves page rank, etc., which informs the content here (I wouldn't mind the page rank to be good, :-), but I am not willing to sacrifice the integrity of WP to do it; there are policies against that, and for good reason.) How about the main link (www.bucknell.edu) and then a liink to the pages with all the links of individual departments? Or if not on one page, perhaps to a page with links to all the Schools? I firmly believe cherry picking departmental links makes the article look foolish, and would object. Baccyak4H 02:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel somewhat the same way. My rationale for removing the External Links was that the link to the main site is already provided in the infobox; from there, an interested person can access any part of the site they wish. – Mipadi 05:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. Every college entry on Wikipedia that I examined in a small sampling a minute ago has "cherry picked" links. The integrity of Wikipedia is not at stake here, the entry is not compromised, the links ARE helpful, and so on. Benthos 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Benthos

Just a note, the introduction states that there are over 50 majors while under the Academics section it states there are 47 majors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.232.214 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New president

While it probably would be appropriate to add something to this article mentioning the appointment of John C. Bravman as Bucknell's next president, please don't add him to the article as the president until he's sworn in on July 1. Until then, he's not president. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures available

There are about 40+ new photos available for possible inclusion in article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Movement of ranking out of lead

I moved the rankings from the lead into the Rankings and Admission section of the body. Honestly, the rankings are a completely useless and subjective metric and placing it in the lead is giving them undue weight.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An unregistered editor has reverted those edits (and also reverted some of my own edits) a few times. I agree that the rankings don't belong in the lead.

Nor does an unsourced and vague claim that the university is "highly selective" belong in the lead. If there are reliable sources that make that claim, it should be documented in the body of the article where we can put such a vague claim into context.

Finally, the claim that this university is the "nation's largest liberal arts university" needs an independent (and up-to-date and available) source, not one that comes straight from the university (or a Google cache of an outdated page). ElKevbo (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is no source for the "highly selective" statement, especially when you have been explicitly told what it is. We don't need to quote the US News verbatim, and no intelligent argument can be made that "highly selective" is not covered by the term "most selective" as used in the US News rankings (in fact, you might argue that "highly selective" soft-sells the source." Regardless, the easy remedy would just be to use the actual intent. However, your objection does not revolve around sourcing, as made clear above, so I'm not sure why you've introduced that red herring here. Regarding vagueness, that argument simply doesn't make sense. We have an entire section on the reputation of the school and it's admission standards...the lede must summarize this. The language the IP and I want in does this perfectly.

Also, I'm not sure why we would require a secondary source for the statement about Bucknell being the largest LA college in the US...these types of statements are frequently attributed to the institutions making them. However, I would agree that this does not necessarily belong in the lede (though I don't see a problem with it being there).

Finally, some colleges put rankings in the lede, some don't. I would argue that they do belong there as they are absolutely essential for understanding the culture and nature of the school. Perhaps for more well-known institutions this is not true, but for smaller or lesser-known schools, the rankings are of the utmost importance and provide much information about the school itself and the students there. Furthermore, based on the massive popularity of the rankings, I think it would be disingenuous to argue that our readers would not be interested or well-served by having this information in the lede.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please spend some time reviewing WP:UNI and WP:UNIGUIDE; we have some standards that have already been established in this area. ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two things: 1. If that's your reason, state it. Don't pretend it's something else; 2. If you read the guidelines, you would know that it is advised that all rankings in the article be summarized succinctly in one sentence in the lede: "In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times.").LedRush (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rankings have no place in the lead except to booster the place. Mtking ^(edits) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines cited above disagree, and I've made out an affirmative case stating otherwise. Would you like to respond to either?LedRush (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well ElKevbo, GrapedApe and I disagree that it's inclusion is appropriate here, and you have said nothing to indicate why it should be in the lead. Mtking ^(edits) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for the policy and my affirmative arguments for inclusion above? Listen, I can see you coming in here, guns ablazin', once and making the mistake you did. But to make it again after I explicitly reference my arguments above is worrisome. If you disagree with the guideline or my arguments, that's fine. Please explain why. But ignoring them, and then saying they don't exist when pointed out to you, is not helpful. Also, you are disruptively ignoring WP:BRD and making false accusations about my edits...I have not reverted the removal of this information every time, as even a cursory look at the history would let you know.LedRush (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is in fact your use of WP:BRD that is the disruptive element here, three editors believe the text has no place in the lead, you are the only one that does (so far as I can see), it is of no encyclopaedic value, rankings are a subjective measure relevant (if at all) only on the day they are complied and in my view they should play no part in an encyclopaedic article, however I accept that I could not get consensus around that, but here there is consensus that they should not feature in the lead. Mtking ^(edits) 23:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If I am the only editor who has reverted the deletion of the rankings as far as you can see, you haven't looked at the history of the article which shows another editor doing it twice. Furthermore, while I am glad that you are make some sort of statement of opinion, I would hope that you could address the guidelines (quoted and linked above) and my affirmative arguments for inclusion (also above).LedRush (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Highly selective" in lead

(Oh boy, we get to have this conversation yet again in another article! Surely there comes a point when we can declare an issue "settled" once we've discussed it many times and reached the same conclusion each time...)

Another editor is insisting that the phrase "highly selective" be included in the lead. The assertion is that it is "sourced content (see US News Rankings)." First, that's untrue; the USN&WR phrase is "more selective." Second, it's a vague phrase that conveys little information to the reader. I know that it's supposed to be a proxy for quality but it's an incredibly poor one that is notoriously easy to game.

This has been discussed several times and the outcome has always been the same. If someone would like to try to see if consensus has changed or can be changed, please be my guest. The best place to start would be here. ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The phrase used in US News is "most selective". I would be happy to substitute that for the current language. Otherwise, we are simply not allowing reliable sources to be sources for information in the articles lead, but finding that they are reliable for the body. There is no logic in such a determination.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo. But it doesn't change anything. Using the exact phrase in the lead will only make the lead awkward.

I'm going to solicit additional opinions from WP:UNI. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Highly selective" should not be in the lead. In the body, you may cite that an entity has called the Bucknell University "highly selective," provided it is referenced. Otherwise, it's WP:BOOSTERISM and WP:POV.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and the relevant section of the article.LedRush (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did. Here's what I think: "[adjective] selective" should not be in the lead. In the body, you may cite that an entity has called the Bucknell University "[adjective] selective," provided it is referenced. Otherwise, it's WP:BOOSTERISM and WP:POV.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How many entities would have to call a school selective before it could be mentioned in the lead? Is there a reason why sourced content in the body which makes up a substantial and important part of the article could not be mentioned in the lead?LedRush (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to separate out two issues here:

1. I think that it's OK to put cited statements of "[X] called Bucknell [Y]" in the body. What we can't have is "Bucknell is [X]."
2. Mentions of selectivity/prestige/awesomeness shouldn't be in the lead. To have it in there gives these subjective statements undue influence compared to factual information.

Frankly, this is a battle that is had at Talk:Harvard University just about every few weeks. I would respectfully suggest that it's a better use of our collective Wikipedia efforts to just leave that kind of material out of the lead.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

agree with GrapedApe. Doesn't belong in the lead and with all due respect o Bucknell, it doesn't exist in any of the leads for the ivy league schools either. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that "Bucknell is considered a "Hidden Ivy" and in 2011, Forbes rated it 48th in America's Best Colleges.[4]. In its 2012 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked Bucknell 29th in National Liberal Arts Colleges.[5]" is also not appropriate for the lead. To be clear, it's OK in the body, but not the lead.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with one small caveat: "considered to be a 'Hidden Ivy'" is unnecessarily cumbersome. Only one entity controls the designation so it's unnecessary to qualify it. ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored ElKevbo's edits based on the opinions here, though I still must say that I don't understand the positions laid out here. Harvard says in it's lead that it is among the most prestigious colleges in the world. This is true and source (just as it is true and sourced that Bucknell is highly selective) and it seems like the exact same type of statement here. (And yes, I know that other stuff exists). Just because something is positive doesn't mean it's puffery; facts can shed positive light on subjects as well. It seems illogical that well sourced content from the highest quality reliable sources cannot be placed in the lead merely because the information is positive.LedRush (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; that was generously and professionally done!

I think you ran into a few things. First, for better or worse this is a relatively well-settled issue that has been discussed many times. I don't completely agree with it but I think that position is a minority position and I also believe there is value in consistency. Second, this is a reaction to the puffery that seems to accumulate and mar many college and university articles. It may be an overreaction but it's certainly not without reason or purpose. Third, Harvard is a poor choice for a role model article, particularly for this specific issue. The phrase you mentioned is disputed and it comes and goes as the discussion about it wanes and waxes. I have vociferously argued for the inclusion of the phrase because it's essential to understanding Harvard as a cultural phenomenon and institution; vague descriptions of acceptance rates are not essential for understanding most other institutions, including Bucknell. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that LedRush's conduct here was extremely classy. A credit to the whole Wikipedia project.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the "Highly selective" and ranking section of lead are not appropriate, they are textbook examples of peacock and academic boosterism and should remain out, until a policy based consensus can be reached. Mtking ^(edits) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the issue may be settled for this article but my thinking is that "[adjective] selective" does not belong in the lead. Highly/more/less/minimally compared to...? Other schools in the state? Region? Country? It is a statement that needs more information to explain it. As such, it should not be in the lead because it would require more information than should be in an introduction. City boy77 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with the reasoning and the application of the rule, I think it is moderately settled now (unless new editors show up). However, below there is a discussion of whether or not one sentence regarding rankings can be in the lead. WP:UNIGUIDE explicitly recommends such a sentence, though certain editors here disagree with it, though on what grounds I am not 100% sure. Perhaps you could weigh in there.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think it does, it gives guidance about what could be covered, it does not mandate anything, it says when using rankings in the lead make sure your stick to NPOV, but it does not explicitly recommend anything. Mtking ^(edits) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Highly selective" does not belong in the lead. Of course, I do not believe "prestigious" belongs in the Harvard University lead, either, and frankly this is one of the reasons why I don't think it does. "If Harvard can be called prestigious, my favorite university can be called..." It may be wrong to use a slippery-slope argument before any slippage is evident, but here we see slippage certifiably in progress.

"Highly selective" is admissions-office talk. It's marketing talk. It's vague. It has no real definition. Any university can claim to be highly selective and none can contradict it.

Think of Oxford University and what phrases come to mind? Dreaming spires? Yes. Oxford English Dictionary? Yes. "Highly selective?" I think not.

"Highly selective" means that the university has marketed itself well enough to create a strong demand. Well, one hopes any good university could do that. It suggests a certain minimum level of quality, but it is no more a certificate of academic excellence than a shortage of FIJIT Friends Willa at Christmas is proof of the preeminent play quality of FIJIT Friends Willa.

Turn it around. Say "Highly selective" and what universities come to mind? Is "highly selective" a special characteristic associated with Bucknell, a typifying thing about it, something that separates it clearly from Haverford or Mount Holyoke or Sewanee? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. It is not vague. It would become even less vague if we use the term "most selective", as the term is well-defined in the source.

2. When I think of Oxford I would not think of dreaming spires (seriously, who would), but I would absolutely think of highly selective, as would 99% of the people you asked that question to.

3. Turn it around and yes, the term would separate Bucknell from many, many other colleges. In fact, it would separate them from at least 75% of colleges in the US. I suspect that Haverford and Mount Holyoke would not be separated, but I'm not sure about Sewanee. The extensive lists of rankings in the lede on that Wikipedia page lead me to believe it is a very good school, so it might not be separated from Bucknell in this respect. (BTW: Sewanee is a case in point regarding why this information should be in the lede (and rankings info), I've never heard of the school before, but it appears to be an excellent one. Why bury the information in the body? It does a disservice to our readers at no benefit to the project),LedRush (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

4. I have conceded the point not to include it, but have reserved the right to revisit the issue should other editors weigh in.LedRush (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it seems I'm coming in late to a settlement that's been reached in a courteous and appropriate fashion. Well done, and apologies for beating a dead horse. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New Bucknell University articles

There is a lot of room for growth relating to Bucknell University topics. For example, these articles should be created: History of Bucknell University, List of Bucknell University buildings, The Bucknellian. These existing articles require a lot of work, as well: Bucknell University Conservatives Club, Bucknell University Press, West Branch (journal), List of presidents of Bucknell University, List of Bucknell University alumni, WVBU-FM. Perhaps these ought to be the focus for a editors interested in Bucknell University for a while.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The main article needs work, as well. A number of sections are completely unreferenced--GrapedApe (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Ivies quality claim

I am not seeing anything that says the book list "Institutions comparable in quality to Ivy League universities", only that the Rival the Ivy League, but no mention of quality. Unless one can be found this claim needs to be changed. Mtking ^(edits) 19:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When something "rivals" something else, it isn't synonymous with being "comparable"? That aside, the very cover of the book says "How to get an Ivy League Education at a College of Comparable Excellence". If the cover of the book says it, it seems like a slam dunk to me.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Comparable Excellence" is not the same as "comparable in quality", so I think the wording needs to be changed . Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They are essentially the same for the purposes of Wikipedia, seeing as we are generally to paraphrase and use our own words. Combined with the other phrases in the book, it seems to argue that the language we use is not supported by the sources. We could quote it, but that seems highly unnecessary as the phrases are as similar as possible without being the same. If we use the exact wording without quotes, we have a copyright vio.

Out of curiosity, is there anything short of finding the exact phrase which you would accept?

Furthermore, Random House's second definition of excellence is "an excellent quality". I just don't see how saying two colleges are of "comparable excellence" is not support for the two colleges being of "comparable quality". Both phrases obviously mean that the two colleges are comparable. The former merely defines the type or level of quality (high) while the second does not, though it is implied in the sentence we use in the article. If anything, you should be happier with this use as it is less susceptible to a puffery claim than the phrase used in the book.LedRush (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to use "comparable quality" than it must be demonstrated that someone else has first. How about this wording :

Bucknell is also listed in the guide "Hidden Ivies: 50 Top Colleges that Rival the Ivy League," a guide that looks a 50 universities that rival those of the Ivy League.

I think it is more balanced ? Mtking ^(edits) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to prove that someone has used the exact phrase in order to use such phrase. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be one big copyright violation or one big quote. Other than your typo, your proposed language is ok, but not as good as the existing language. Furthermore, it may be a copyright violation to use the exact wording of the book without quoting it (though I would argue that in this context it might not be). Regardless, the existing language is better. Also better would be to simply replace "quality" with "excellence" or "comparable in quality" to "of comparable excellence". However, because no one has articulated a good reason to make the change, and because the makers of this language and I agree that it is valid, and only one editor thinks it isn't, it seems unnecessary to make any change.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a copyright issue with my wording, however I am happy to ask the WP copyright guru User:Moonriddengirl. I do think that if the text is going to say that the 50 uni's listed in that book are of comparable quality the phrase should have been used by someone other than a WP editor first. Lets see what others think. Mtking ^(edits) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a core belief (guideline, principle, whatever) that articles should be written in the editors' own words? Several essays (Like WP:copy-paste and WP:PARAPHRASE explicitly say "Always write the articles in your own words". This is done to avoid issues with plagiarism and copyright violation (I think above I should have been talking about the former, not the latter)? We have conflicting responsibilities not to plagiarize or commit copyright-violations while at the same time staying true to our reliable sources. The current language in the article does that perfectly. Your language is less perfect as it is far closer to plagiarism/copyvio and it doesn't give the reader as accurate a sense of what the book is actually saying. My modified proposal (on which you have still not replied) is better in both respects as related to yours, but still not as good as the current language.LedRush (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the current blurb and that is my understanding and view of the situation. But if anyone feels strongly that the language should be changed, please be my guest; I have no dog in this fight. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• College rankings have no place in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the definitional and essential aspects of the topic. In no way does a magazine ranking play any definitional or essential role in the University. Put that in the body.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, WP:UNIGUIDE, in addition to the numerous reasons above, disagrees with you.LedRush (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

GrapedApe, LedRush is correct that WP:UNIGUIDE explicitly permits a summary of current rankings in the lead. If you disagree, the proper course of action is to lobby that WP:UNIGUIDE be changed and not that this article should ignore or be exempt from it. ElKevbo (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it explicitly permits rankings in the lead, however it does not mandate them. So it is appropriate for editors to discuss the exact form any mention should take, and absent a consensus as to the wording, it is best to be silent in the lead. Mtking ^(edits) 00:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Rankings in the lead

So, now that we know that the admission numbers were cooked, for the last 6 years, shall there be a trimming of the focus on rankings in the lead?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch! That didn't even occur to me... ElKevbo (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus...let's see what US News says first, mkay?LedRush (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You would agree that the SAT scores from 2006-2012 are false, right?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct the scores, talk about the cooked numbers (as we have), and don't touch the rankings until/unless the rankings change.LedRush (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They're going to change and be removed from the rankings; that's USW&WR's policy and they've been consistent in enforcing it. We know it's bad, incorrect information so it's irresponsible to publish it. ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Kevbo is correct.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Source? Otherwise, WP:Crystal.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bucknell.edu/x80564.xml --GrapedApe (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I've referred to that change being a positive one already. I asked for a source regarding USNWR rankings changing.LedRush (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's baffling that you believe it's a good idea to edit war to preserve information we know is incorrect. ElKevbo (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is baffling that you would want to edit the article to conform to a future projection of what might happen.LedRush (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't dodge the question. Why do you believe it's good for an encyclopedia to report information that is known to be incorrect and based on falsified data? ElKevbo (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have explicitly said, I don't. Change the SAT data. However, you can't touch the USNWR info unless you provide a source that says that the USNWR rankings have changed based on this.LedRush (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's dishonest and unethical to report information we know is based on falsified data. In the unlikely event that Bob Morse reports that the rankings aren't changed, we can easily restore the information. But that probably won't happen and since there are genuine challenges to the accuracy of these data the responsible thing is to remove them. Insisting on preserving this information in the name of Wikipedia bureaucracy is asinine and downright harmful. ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's dishonest and unethical to pretend to know the outcome of a decision before it is made. We have WP rules for a reason, and this is one of them. Your unfounded POV is harmful to this article and to the project.LedRush (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You would be right if we were proposing to insert text saying "The U.S. News rankings will be changed." We're not. No one is. We propose that the article be silent on rankings, which is entirely different, and is the responsible decision.--GrapedApe (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The rankings are what they are. You're trying to omit them based on original research, against wikipedia policy.LedRush (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with User:LedRush's preference to keep the rankings in the lead. While I'm sure USNWR will eventually remove the rankings, until they do, I think it's better to hold on to them. Anything else does smack a bit of OR. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to me opening an RfC? This is an issue that affects other institutions and will certainly occur again, many times so it seems like a good idea to get input from more than the four editors. ElKevbo (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This particular situation has been resolved as USN&WR won't change Bucknell's rankings. That's a shame because we still need to resolve this issue for our articles. ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Makes you wonder why the BU offical faked the numbers in the first place, if it wasn't to get a better ranking. Also, the fakery goes bak to 2006, but US News doesn't seem to be checking those earlier calculations.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement doesn't really say why certain scores were omitted from the calculations. It only says that some were higher than the average, most were lower, and that you can't blame the omission of legacies, minorities, or other oft-targeted groups. It seems incompetence isn't believable, but I really can't think of what actually happened and why.LedRush (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful campus

Also, though I have visited Bucknell, and found its campus to be beautiful, isn't that a point of view (mine). Instead, you could include pictures of the campus. This article could be improved by making it more in-depth. I think Trinity College's wiki is a good example of where this should be headed.

History

The Bucknell History section of this page was brief, I tried to fill it out with more information. I know there's a lack of citations on that, I'm in the process of searching for and adding them - I just wanted the rest of you to know that so no one deletes it. I do think this page needs to be filled out more completely, it's clearly lacking when compared to other university entries on wikipedia.

"Hidden Ivies" in lead

An editor has begun an edit war to retain mention of Bucknell's inclusion in one book that describes "Hidden Ivy" colleges. I don't see how this one book is so important and defining for this university (or any other) that it warrants inclusion in the lead of this encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A version of this material was originally added to the lead of this article by an unregistered editor in January 2012. It was moved to the body of the article about a month later (by me, coincidentally). At that time it was the subject of discussion on this Talk page (still visible a few sections above this one). It remained out of the lead for nearly four years until yesterday when Collegeguy1616 added it to the lead; I reverted the edit and he or she began an edit war to retain the material (albeit with an expanded description and a low quality reference). ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not a fact that Bucknell (or any of the other 49 schools listed) provides an education comparable to an Ivy League school: it is merely one book's opinion. It seems to me that one opinion alone is not of sufficient weight to include the content in the lead. I wouldn't object to placing it elsewhere in the article (perhaps in the Ranking section). Contributor321 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the material doesn't belong in the lead and placing it in the body is an acceptable compromise (although I'm not convinced that this material belongs in the article at all). ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave this discussion open for a week and see if any editors respond with opposing viewpoints. If not, I'll go ahead and delete the content from the lead (and may place it in the body of the article - I'm still "on the fence"). Contributor321 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since no one else chimed in, I've deleted the reference from the lead but included it in the Rankings section (consistent with where a number of other "Hidden Ivies" do so). Contributor321 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111221310/http://www.bucknell.edu/x500.xml to http://www.bucknell.edu/x500.xml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)