Talk:University of Pennsylvania/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notable people

Based on what information is George Washington listed as an alumnus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.20.76 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He's not an alum. I've removed him. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was astonished to find that Louis I. Kahn, one of the half dozen most important architects (worldwide) of the 20th century, is not mentioned anywhere in this article, not even among notable alumni. Also, the architecture program in general, one of the nation's most influential (especially during the Holmes Perkins/Louis Kahn period), is also overlooked.

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A very good school excellent in management. They have received 4 Nobel Prizes as well: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-laureates-and-research-affiliations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:C515:4475:59CD:AD4A (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

George Washington (and his entire cabinet attended lectures given by James Wilson, who write 1st draft of and participated in subsequent drafts of US Constitution and at that time in 1789 and 1790 was Penn Professor Law. Though Penn Law was not started until mid 1859s there was a class given on the law in 1789 and 1790 by James Wilson who would go on to be an Associate Justice of US Supreme Court. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Penn in popular culture

On August 16 a new section was added titled "In popular culture" documenting Penn's appearances in the arts and media. The section includes references to Penn that are found in literary works, TV series and movies. The section was deleted on the grounds that it is "uncited trivia," but was reinserted by the original author. Following the reinsertion and within a few hours three more users contributed to the section by either adding or editing its content. The section was deleted again by the same user on the same grounds, only to be reinserted again by the original author.

As the original author of that section I move to keep it. A section on Penn's appearances in the arts and media is of value for several reasons. First, it reflects the ideas people hold about Penn. For example on several occasions Wharton is mentioned as a powerhouse for professionals that make six figures. Second, it shows that the university is an established institution in people's minds. Third, it documents how the university becomes part of cultural history. Lastly, it highlights the aesthetic value of Penn's campus by showing how artists select Penn landmarks such as the Fine Arts Library or Franklin Field to serve as the setting for their works.

I assume that for these reasons, and possibly more, a "popular culture" section is present in many of Penn's peers articles, including the Wiki pages of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Darthmouth, Caltech, NYU, Wellesley and others.

Also, according to Wikipedia guidelines on university articles a special section on popular culture is allowed:

"In popular culture

"University of X in popular culture" articles are generally not notable and should be integrated into the rest of the article. Most of the time these articles are indiscriminate lists. Although some of these articles exist (Yale in popular culture), their content should be merged into the primary article when appropriate and ultimately nominated for deletion (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be the case that a particular academic program (film, radio, etc.) is notable with regard to its portrayal in popular culture. In this scenario the pop culture info could be included in the academics section or article rather than creating a separate article for popular culture. If this happens it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources."

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines

The fact that the section does not contain citations is a different issue, and it cannot by itself justify deletion of the section. Many of the internal links point to articles that cross-verify the validity of the section's content. For those cases that cannot be verified by an internal link more proportional measures can be taken, for example the [citation needed] tag. Besides facts that are well known or easily verifiable may not need citations at all. I am not suggesting that adding citations in the section would not enhance it, but rather that the section meets Wikipedia's standards despite the lack of citations.

For the reasons presented here I think that the section should be kept in place. 129.67.119.242 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is not negotiable so the material must be sourced if another editor challenges it.

I believe that most of these "In popular culture" sections are abominations that have no place in encyclopedia articles. Well-written and well-sourced descriptions of selected popular culture appearances and influence would be welcome; these incoherent lists of trivia are not welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However the editor who deleted the section did not challenge the verifiability of the content, nor its truthfulness. I don't think that anyone would object to removing the cases in the section that are not true or accurate. Before deleting a section altogether it's better to try to enhance it by adding citations if you think they are necessary. This is why the [citation needed] tag was introduced. Second, I also agree that the section's writing style can be enhanced. But -again- instead of deleting content, try making it better. A section that exists in so many institutions (not only universities) is apparently something that many feel is important, possibly for the reasons I mentioned above. This is also why Wikipedia explicitly allows it (see above). So, let's try to keep the content and work on the format. Thanks.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As the "editor who deleted the section", I am challenging its verifiability. That's why I noted that none of the material has a citation when I deleted it in the first place. Furthermore, the very guideline you cited above ("If this happens it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources.") isn't what you've presented here. There's no analysis at all of Penn's role in popular culture, much less a collection of analyses. You've presented nothing but a list of unencyclopedic, apocryphal appearances, and I'm not sure that has any place at all in this article. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we seem to agree that work needs to be done as to the format, style and wording of the section. Citations would of course be welcome. If you delete the section it will never get better, whereas if you leave it there editors -myself included- will keep enhancing it. As you may have noticed 3 more people contributed in only 5 hours. That is the whole point of a collaborative project. Not every article and section can or will be perfect right away. Besides, most "popular culture" sections are presently bullet lists. Even Oxford's, which is recommended as a featured university article. I am not suggesting that the bullet form is the best way to go, I am merely pointing out that this is widespread practice accepted by wikipedia standards. Thank you again for your comments.

80.7.146.239 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I noted in one of my other edit summaries, just because another article (or even articles) includes a particular feature, that doesn't mean this article must or should include it. Yes, a collaborative project means giving people time to fix things, but adding wholesale unverified information to an article isn't the best approach. Instead, use something like the sandbox or your own personal userspace (which would require registration) to work on those works in project progress. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources. Just adding things in and hoping someone somewhere someday will add the appropriate citations isn't that same thing. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm on this page, I'm actually sort of curious about why you want to include all this information anyway. What does knowing that one of the Huxtables ran in the Penn Relays really have to do with an encyclopedia article about Penn? What does it add to the reader's understanding of what the university is? The same thing goes for scenes from Philadelphia being shot at Fisher Fine Arts—what information does this really provide? As ElKevbo noted, I'm inclined to believe that all such lists are total junk. Now, if you could find a reliable source somewhere that said, "Penn has often been used in film and television as a symbol of WASP privilege [or a stand-in for Ivy League elitism or a setting for racial diversity—whatever]," then that could conceivably enrich the reader's understanding of the article. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why I think such a section is of value are explained above. You obviously don't agree and that is perfectly fine. However, you have to respect that many more people seem to find such a section important enough to include it in many other institutions' pages as well as in Wikipedia's guidelines. While the writing style of the section is not of the highest quality, it is on par with those of other institutions. As to the lack of citations please keep in mind that not everything needs to be cited. There is no appropriate citation for the fact that a fictional character is a Penn graduate, unless you are suggesting to pincite the book or script page. Again, this is in accordance with how other similar sections are written. I understand that you don't see widespread practice as a justification for how to write this article, but before you decide to scrap a whole section -which will do no good- try improving the general practice so that this as well as other similar sections meet your higher standards. Until then the general practice as it stands now remains in force and as long as this section is in accordance to it, I am inclined to think it's fine. Not perfect -just fine. Thank you as always.

129.67.119.240 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that you cite every single example here. If it's from a TV show, name the episode and the date it aired. If it's from a book, the page number and publication date. There is no "general practice" that "remains in force" on Wikipedia beyond the five pillars. Everything else is guidelines and consensus. Your way doesn't become "the standard" just because other articles use it; my way doesn't become the standard just because I think these sections are total crap. We strive to find middle ground (like at least providing citations for this list, which you've yet to do for a single entry). Esrever ^(klaT) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the guideline that was pointed to earlier shows that the section should remain in place. The problem is, it currently holds references to tv's, movies, etc that were just shot at Penn. To be included, Penn should have had a significant impact on the media being used. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope people don't mind, but I removed some instances with this edit where Penn didn't have a significant impact on the show/movie.

Thanks for your remark. But I would have to kindly disagree on that. Sixteen out of twenty-two references are about characters having studied/taught at Penn or about one of Penn's schools or about Penn as a whole. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And the other 6? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And I think it's fine to include prose material that analyzes Penn's place in pop culture. I just don't think any of the instances cited here currently do that. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan thanks for cleaning-up the section. I'm fine with the edits if everyone else is. Prose may take some time. We can start by adding a couple of citations to keep everyone happy. Some of the references (e.g. It's Always Sunny in Philly, Mona Lisa, Transformers) link to other Wikipedia articles that verify the content of this section. I think these references are in low priority. For the rest I'll see what I can do in due time. Feel free to contribute. Thanks.

129.67.119.240 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Esrever is right, Wikipedia does not self reference (although in articles that are solely lists is it sometimes unnecessary to include references). In this case, I believe the best course of action would be to follow the links and if the material is cited in the article, to use that citation for this article. I will help find references for some of this, but I would like to suggest that anything left unreferenced in that section 48 hours from now be removed. I have no problem with the information being re-added once there is a source to back it up. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, 48 hours is too short and arbitrary. You are assuming that many editors will work on this and that they will dedicate a lot of their time and that they will see your message now. I know you mean well, but a 48 hour deadline or "we will remove it" sounds like a threat. Further, as I explained before we first need to think what of all these actually needs to be referenced. If all factual allegations in an article had to be referenced, we would need a citation for the fact that Penn is in Philly, that it is a member of the Ivy League, that it is private and so on. This is not the point of citations, as you can also see in Wikipedia's verifiability page: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." And even if a reference was challenged, I would still think that it is more appropriate to put a [citation needed] tag first and then consider removing the material. Thank you.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the additions have been challenged here and here. They all need a source. In fact, I am challenging the verifiability of any of these additions which cannot be supported by a reliable third-party source. 48 hours was just a number I threw out; however, I do think any information left unsourced after a week should be removed. A week is more than enough time. In addition, the information is not removed permanently, it can be re-added when a reliable source is found. If information is tagged with citation needed it can be freely removed, so I will tag them now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't pursue this further; too much energy has been wasted on this for no reason. I just have two final remarks: First, challenging the verifiability of something takes more than "this is unsourced" or "I challenge its verifiability." It means explaining why a statement may be wrong and possibly offering evidence for that. Otherwise, as I explained, everyone could challenge everything, even the fact that Penn is in Philly and you would have to provide a google map citation to convince them. Second, if you want to be consistent in your edits I don't see a reason why you don't do the same with every unsourced reference in other institutions' similar sections (there is a list above, and to be clear though, I am not suggesting you do). Thank you as always for reading this.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There are geographic coordinates which prove that Penn is in Philadelphia. There are multiple citations which talk about Penn as being in the Ivy League. Frankly, I don't care about the pages for the other schools right now. I am hoping to improve this article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

User:Ryan Vesey requested that I do a review of the article in the run up to a GA nomination. I'll put some thoughts here that will help the article adhere to the GA Criteria.

History

• The one-sentence paragraph about changing Penn's start day to 1740 seems out of place chronologically. I would incorporate it into the last para before educational innovations section.
• Two one-sentence paras in this section see WP:LAYOUT for thoughts on one-sentence paras.
• Being the first to award a PhD to an african american woman is noteworthy but it doesn't seem to fit w/in the subject of the paragraph. I'm torn a little on this one because it was ground breaking to award a PhD to an african american woman.
• The color hex values are too detailed and go beyond WP:SS. Incorporating the colors into say the athletics section is fine but just the colors.

Campus

• Under Libraries sub section what does FTE stand for? This should be spelled out.
• The university museum sub section has peacock words like "dramatic", which should be removed per WP:WTW in criterion 1b. There are other examples of this for example in student organization sub section the glee club's "best-known" director was Bruce Montgomery. How can this be verified? And is it really necessary to identify the director as the "best-known"?
  • I believe the source now added addresses the reason that he is referred to as best known. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also no refs in this section

Housing

• No refs in this section.

Academics

• I count two refs in the entire section.
• Check out WP:LIST, from my understanding of this guideline embedded lists should be spelled out in prose whenever possible. We want to avoid articles with list after list after list. I count ten lists in this article, which probably needs to be reduced.

Student Life

• There's a clean up banner in this section, could be a applied to a few other sections. This will have to be addressed prior to GA nomination or it will be quick failed.

Overall

• Ok at this point I'm going to pull up and give some overall impressions for where this article needs to go before it should be nominated at GAC.

• Referencing is poor, the first part of the article is fine but then it gets very hit and miss.
• Reference formatting should be uniform, this isn't necessarily part of the GA Criteria but it isn't hard to make refs uniform and it helps readers make sense of them better. Recommend {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates.
• Lists should be expanded into prose wherever possible.
• Peacock words should be removed.
• Balance: in my cursory reading of the article I found only the "water buffalo incident" as an even remotely negative point to the university. In my experience articles on universities are egregious violators of WP:NPOV, usually because they are written by current students or alumni with a lot of pride in their institution. A university like Penn has to have some negative press out there. Has it been involved in controversies? Were there clashes between students and administration during the 1960's for example? Have there been any protests like against testing on animals since it's a research facility? Any ethics violations by staff or notable criminal activity on campus or perpetrated by students/staff?
• While not technically part of the GA Criteria, the article violates WP:OVERLINK IMO. Terms in common English useage do not need to be linked.
• The lead does not conform with WP:LEAD, lots of sections in the body of the article that are not summarized in the lead.

• It's evident that more work has been done to the beginning of the article than the middle and end, I would start in the middle and work down.
• What the article has going for it are good images, the refs appear to be credible, the writing is not bad, and it appears as though most of the subjects are covered. This concludes my informal review, once some of the big items have been fixed I'd happily do a more indepth review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

First, I am not dead set on including the information on Robb, so I don't want this to get blown out of proportion. Wouldn't it be controversial that someone who committed murder was teaching students? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

More questions on popular culture

Where are the guidelines for what should and should not be included in a section on popular culture. For example, Penn is not the subject of Jim Thorpe - All-American, but the opponent. Is this something that should be included? I remember watching the Transformers movie, and while I believe it was shot at Penn, it was ambiguous in the movie as to which Ivy League school he was attending. I think this might be notable because (if IMDB is correct) Penn requested not to be mentioned due to scenes including marijuana usage. Can anyone help find information to back this up? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rowbottom (riot)

For negative history, consider Rowbottom (riot) and the shouts by students to the former president to show part of her anatomy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added this into the article. I am unable to find much about the second part of your post. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More thorough peer review

I've been asked to do a more thorough peer review in preparation for a run at GAC. I'll review with an eye towards the GA criteria but I want to push the article beyond the criteria.

Lead

• You don't usually need refs in the lead unless you are making a particularly controversial statement. See WP:LEAD on this. The thinking here is that since the information is supposed to be repeated in the article, the refs will be found there and it would be unnecessary to put them in the lead. It isn't a hard and fast rule and a ref or two in the lead wouldn't be questioned, 9 different cites w/ a parenthetical note may be a bit much.
• Try to do something with the one-sentence paragraph. It may go well in the first paragraph, it just doesn't look right hanging out at the end of the lead IMO.
• I don't see anything in the lead about athletics, facilities (the campus), notable people and popular culture (we'll talk more about that later). You may want to take a look at University GAs/FAs and see how the leads are written. In such a long article with many diverse subjects the lead becomes a real challenge. It needs to flow, be concise, readable, and yet cover all the diverse subjects in the article. You have your work cut out for you on the lead.

If you give me a couple of weeks I can prepare a section on research, which seems to be one of Penn's most important activities. This can help move one or two sentences from the lead section to free some space for additional info on athletics, notable people etc 80.7.146.239 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would remove sentences from the lead; however, it is a major part of Penn that is lacking from the article so it would be a great addition. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it.80.7.146.239 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it isn't about removing info from the Lead, if anything info needs to be added. Sounds like you're getting the gist of what I'm talking about.

History

• The sentence is poorly written, "Designed and built by Edmund Woolley, it was the largest building in the city and it was also planned to serve as a charity school." The sentence starts with who designed and built it, then goes to the fact that it was the largest in the city, and then moves into alternative uses for it. There's no focus to the sentence and it is awkwardly worded because it covers so many topics. The GA Criteria say the writing should be "reasonably well written" with the prose being "clear and concise" as well as correct grammar and spelling. IMO the info about the alternative purpose for the building should be cut out and put in the previous sentence about Whitfield.
• "These three schools were part of the same institution and were overseen by the same board of Trustees." Three schools? I thought there were two: University of the State of Pennsylvania and College of Philadelphia. Am I misreading something? Maybe I'm confused. This is the start of the review I have more to do but it will be piecemeal as I have time. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The source of the information states "The three schools were part of the same institution and were overseen by the same board of Trustees." This brings up infinitely more problems due to close paraphrasing, and a misuse of information. The cited source is actually referring to the Academy of Philadelphia, the Charity school, and the College of Philadelphia (information found in the second paragraph of history). I'm going to bring the issue up with Moonriddengirl and see if she can help find more copyvio. If you look at the article history, you will see that I have found copyvio in other places. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Campus

• University city is linked twice, once is enough. Same with Philadelphia.
• A 4,000-ton ice storage facility!! What on Earth do they need that much ice for? Just curious.

Run chillers when cooling is cheaper and/or there is excess capacity as a buffer against when demand exceeds instantaneously available supply. Sorta like a modern-day Ice house (building). DMacks (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sheesh you'd think one of the trustees owned stock in ice or something. Just kidding. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any other notable buildings? Perhaps old buildings still in use? You have a hodge podge selection of buildings listed in this section, but most of them seem to be relatively recent builds. Are there any buildings in use from the 19th century for example? Is there a map of the campus that could be included? I'm not sure what is in most university GAs so if that's going beyond the scope then disregard.

Academics

• Good discussion about funding issues and bond ratings. That lends balance to the article.
• Wharton is listed as doing Health Management, is that part of the business school?
• 2 refs in the Admissions selectivity sub-section, that needs to be addressed. If you cite a publication like US News and World Report in the article you should have a reference for it.

Rankings

• Same here, really need refs for all the ranking claims.
• Otherwise I think this section is fine. Ok that's it for now more to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Student life

• "The Philomathean Society, founded in 1813,[51] claims to be the United States' oldest continuously-existing collegiate literary society." Does ref 51 support claims in the entire sentence? If so it should be placed at the end of the sentence as the claim of being the oldest should be referenced as potentially controversial.
• "The Mask and Wig Club is the oldest all-male musical comedy troupe in the country." Sentence needs to be referenced for the same reason as above.
• "The University of Pennsylvania Glee Club, founded in 1862, is one of the oldest continually operating collegiate choruses in the United States." Ditto.
• What criteria was used for selecting the organizations featured in this section? I don't think we need every student organization, that would go beyond WP:SS, but perhaps more on what else is available to students.

Athletics

• Watch peacock words like, "Penn's famed coach". This would fall into the words to watch section of crit. 1b, part of the MOS concerns.
• "becoming the NFL's last 60-minute man." I'm not familiar with the 60-minute man term, and I'm pretty versed on American sports vernacular. Can this be linked or explained?
• Many of the sub-sections here have no references. GA criteria don't mandate a ref per section, I think it's a good rule of thumb though. Certainly many of the facts in the sections could be referenced w/o much difficulty, and many of the facts should be referenced (first commercially televised football game, one-time host of the Eagles, site of early Army-Navy games, and the Palestra has hosted more NCAA tournament games than any venue in the country are examples).

Notable people

• References please.
• An image of a notable person would be better than Franklin, who was a founder but not an alumnus.

Would Jon Huntsman or Arlen Specter be good candidates for a pic? They are both well known and relatively uncontroversial political figures.80.7.146.239 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

• This is a tricky one, if it is standard fare in most GAs for university articles then something should be here to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. What I suggest is put together a paragraph of the more notable occurances of Penn in popular culture and call it a day. For example IMO the fact that a Pennsylvania college pennant is in a dorm room of an obscure movie from 1951 is not notable enough for inclusion, while several scenes from the movie Philadelphia were shot in a Penn library would be notable.

Controversies

• This is a great start and addresses my concerns about balance. I think it could be expanded a bit though:

• What was the purpose of the Rowbottom riots? Was it just huliganism or was there some sort of statement being made or was it just done because it was tradition? Were there any notable incidents that occured during these riots or a situation that caused them to be shut down?
• What was the outcome of the petition to stop the weapons research?
• Is there anything more about the resignation of the undergrad dean? What is in the article doesn't appear to be enough to warrant inclusion as a controversy. If his abrupt departure is fishy then why?

I agree that the dean incident does not rise up to controversy status (absent further info). Also, here's another possible item for inclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/us/walkout-at-penn-focuses-on-unionization.html?scp=17&sq=%22university+of+pennsylvania%22+research&st=nyt. If someone wants to take this up, or I will do it in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.146.239 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to add more to the dean section. It was incredibly controversial, especially in Penn circles. One of the reasons I say this is that there was a large amount of reporting done on it (they all said roughly the same thing though). Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• You're well on your way, the biggest concern is the lack of sources. It's obvious that you're working hard to improve the article. I hope the suggestions above help in that effort. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content and copyvio

I have placed tags for copyvio/close paraphrasing and possible factual inaccuracies on this article. Throughout the editing of this article I have found numerous instances of close paraphrasing. In addition, most, if not all, sources need to be checked and verified and references must be added to unsourced content. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the copyvio tag, but not with the disputed content, hence the removal. The relevant wiki page states that "Some articles on Wikipedia may contain significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is verifiably wrong. Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a [Disputed] warning place at the top." Though Penn's wikipage lacks sources, "much of the factual accuracy is [not] actively disputed." Previous edits and the talk page do not suggest disputed over the factual accuracy of the content. 80.7.146.239 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I added the tag after finding some information that was verified as being factually innacurate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you identify a couple of sections with close paraphrasing, so that we can remove the tag once at least these have been edited? Thanks. 80.7.146.239 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now I have left a note at Moonriddengirl's talk page. She specializes in copyvio so she should be able to help. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out here. :) But the single most helpful thing you can do for that, Ryan, is point out one or two sources that you have already identified. That will help me zero in on problem areas. We used to have a tool that would automatically scan articles and compare them to other sources, but unfortunately due to a change in Yahoo's terms it no longer functions. :/ Can you point out a specific problem you already detected? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I have removed copyvio in the demographics and the history section (coming from refs two and twelve as of the revision right now. I used plagiarism.net (a free version of turnitin.com) and only ran the first paragraph of the history section through. I don't know how many wikipedia mirrors there are, but some of the results have over 1000 matches. I have been finding plagiarism throughout many of the articles related to UPenn, last time at University Television-13, so I may have assumed there was more copyvio than what actually existed. I ran the article through a copyvio check against Penn's history page here, but I think there's only one or two sentences that could be changed. I also checked the article against the facts and figures page here. There's a decent amount of similar text here, but I don't think it meets the limits of human creativity. Maybe it was just those two isolated instances, but I wanted to make sure it got checked out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If Moonriddengirl is done, is suggest now is a good time to remove the tag from the top of the page.80.7.146.239 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Table in Research, innovations and discoveries section

In the original version of "Research, innovations and discoveries" section I had included the following table. The rationale was that the section was long and contained a lot of information possibly driving away some readers. The table was a quick summary of the main highlights of that section. It was deleted by user:Esrever who thought the table cluttered up the article. To avoid a cat and mouse game of posting-deleting, if anyone wants to share his/her views on this, so that we can see how other people feel about this, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

University of Pennsylvania Major Innovations and Discoveries

Year	Image	Description	Associated people
1852		The Law School publishes the first law journal in the country under the name "The American Law Register" still in existence today as the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.	George Sharswood
1946		The first general purpose electronic computer, ENIAC, is manufactured by Penn engineers at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering	John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert
1951		The Dialysis machine was invented out of a pressure cooker It is used worldwide today to purify blood of patients who suffer kidney failures.	William Inouye
1960s		Cognitive therapy, one of the main cognitive behavioral therapies, seeks to identify and change dysfunctional thinking and behavior.	Aaron T. Beck
1960s		The Wharton Econometric Forecasting Model used to forecast fluctuations including national product, exports, investments, and consumption, and to study the effect on them of changes in taxation, public expenditure, oil price, etc..	Lawrence Klein
1969		The Rubella vaccine was developed by Joseph Stokes, chair of the Department of Pediatrics from 1939 to 1963.	Joseph Stokes
1969		Research conducted at Penn was instrumental in the development of the Hepatitis B vaccine (patent numbers 3,636,191 and 3,872,225).	Baruch Blumberg and Irving Millman
1975		Retin-A, the drug used to treat acne and superficial wrinkles was developed at Penn's dermatology department.	Albert Kligman
1990s		Gene research at Penn has led to the discovery of the genes for fragile X syndrome, Kennedy's disease, Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease.	Kenneth H. Fischbeck

129.67.119.240 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is the same as it was with my comment on your talk page. The section, with the table, should be created in a new article Research at the University of Pennsylvania. The entire section should then be rewritten, shortened to about 4 paragraphs and contain a link at the top stating

Main article: Research at the University of Pennsylvania

. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Esrever ^(klaT) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I started the page at User:Ryan Vesey/Research at the University of Pennsylvania, can someone please fix and fill out the citation templates? Every source should have a minimum of a title, url, and publisher. I probably won't be doing much with it, see the note on my talk page for an explanation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a separate page, but I think we should double the content first and then summarize it. For s summary to make sense it needs to be at least 1/3 of the original article. I will be doing some additional research but it will probably take me some time. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Private Ivy League university

I agree with the IP's in this situation. Every other Ivy League school article other than Princeton is written in this manner. Furthermore, I disagree with Esrever that "Ivy League" isn't a primary descriptor of the University. When someone is asked what the University of Pennsylvania is they don't say it is a private research university, they say it is an Ivy League University. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what they mostly say is, "What's going to happen now that Paterno's been fired?" :-P Esrever ^(klaT) 06:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the "What is the University of Pennsylvania" question usually occurs after I respond to "What's it like dealing with Sandusky?". See User talk:208.54.37.188 Facepalm. It's a pretty amusing discussion though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not Penn State.
Anyone here can relate.
The University of Pennsylvania
Is not Penn State.
Just check the price.
It's like going to Penn State twice!
The University of Pennsylvania
Is not Penn State.
— Mask & Wig lyric from the 1970s, sung to the tune of "Ain't She Sweet." BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop changing this? There seems to be general consensus that the leading sentence to this article should describe Penn as a "private Ivy League" rather than merely a "private research university". The Ivy League brand is a very important part of Penn's identity (and of the other Ivies' as well) 158.130.105.81 (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Should there be a mention of the Douglas E. Lynch fake degree scandal? Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My take would be that it's so completely minor that it's not worth it. He was only a vice dean, and it didn't make national headlines (beyond a Chronicle article, it seems). In the overall ocean of Penn's history, it's barely a ripple. Now, if they found out Gutmann had faked a degree, that'd be noteworthy I should think. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stouffer College House

Should Stouffer College House mention that it is composed of Stouffer and Mayer Hall? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lee stetson leaving

I removed this as not being that notable. Maybe if it recieved national coverage or something, but just the DP covering it? --Malerooster (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a few other outlets covered his departure, but nothing ever "came out" about why he left "abruptly". --Malerooster (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias in Footnote Regarding Date of Founding

Note 2 has a VERY strong bias to it. According to sometime Penn History Professor Edgar Potts Cheyney, the University did indeed consider its founding date to be 1749 for almost a century. However, it was changed with good reason, and primarily due to a publication about the University issued by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The year 1740 is the date of the establishment of the first educational trust that the University had taken upon itself. Cheyney states further that, "it might be considered a lawyer's date; it is a familiar legal practice in considering the date of any institution to seek out the oldest trust it administers." He also points out that Harvard's founding date is *also* the year in which the Massachusetts General Court resolved to establish a fund in a year's time for a "School or College". As well, Princeton claims its founding date as 1746--the date of its first charter. However, the exact words of the charter are unknown, the number and names of the trustees in the charter are unknown, and no known original is extant. With the exception of Columbia University, the majority of the American Colonial Colleges do not have clear-cut dates of foundation. (Edgar Potts Cheyney, "History of the University of Pennsylvania: 1740-1940", Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1940: pp. 45-52.) The idea that the alumni wanted to change the date to "best" Princeton is not grounded in fact and I would like the author of this footnote to provide a reliable source. The Pennsylvania Gazette article cited merely mentions the issue of the change of date, but does not provide the reason given in this footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.207.123 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Citing Penn Professor Edward Potts Cheyney is itself very biased. More specifically, it perpetuates Cheyney's own personal bias. Cheyney is an alumnus from the class of 1883 who played a leading role in Penn revising its founding date in 1899. Cheyney purports to write about the event later as an impartial historian, but he is instead trying to advance arguments for the position which he took in 1899. More important for our purposes, his "facts" are simply wrong. Every one of them can be refuted with a little research on the internet. There are only nine colonial era colleges. Each of them has a well-documented legal charter date, not just Columbia University as Cheyney maintains. These dates are: Harvard 1650; William & Mary 1693; Yale 1701; Princeton 1746; Penn began operating as a secondary school in 1751, was granted its first charter in 1753 as "Academy and Charitable School in the Province of Pennsylvania," began undergraduate education and was granted collegiate charter in 1755 as "College, Academy and Charity School of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania"; Columbia 1754; Brown 1764; Rutgers 1766; Dartmouth began operating in 1768 as the collegiate department of a pre-existing secondary school known as "Moor's Charity School," was granted collegiate charter in 1769 as "Dartmouth College." Princeton had seven men whom the university considers "founders" and twelve members of its first board of trustees. The four men who led the organizational process initially were all Presbyterian ministers: Aaron Burr Sr., Jonathan Dickinson, Ebenezer Pemberton and John Pierson. They recruited three other Presbyterian laymen: William Smith, Peter Van Brugh Livingston and William Peartree Smith. After the royal charter was granted on October 22, 1746, this group added five other men: Samuel Blair, Samuel Finley, Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent Jr. and Richard Treat. These twelve men were the first trustees of The College of New Jersey, as Princeton University was first called. The royal charter was granted "for the Education of Youth in the Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences" and envisioned a college open to "any Person of any religious Denomination whatsoever" who aimed to become an "ornament of the State as well as the Church." The full text is available in a few sources, including the book "Princeton 1746-1896," by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, on pages 396-404. Harvard does in fact use a founding date which is not its legal charter date but, in Harvard's case, it is not trying to move up its place in academic processions because Harvard College of course predates every other colonial college by approximately a half century whether using its "founding date" of 1636 or its charter date of 1650. Cheyney is trying make the case that every colonial college has roots which are lost to history, but that is absolutely not true. For events which took place hundreds of years ago, the origins of the colonial colleges are surprisingly well known, in part because each school has taken pains to record its early history. Penn has one of the very best and most complete collections of its founding documents, with copies of its first charter for "the academy and charity school," second collegiate charter and other valuable archived records available on the university website. Take a look at them; it's a fascinating trip through eighteenth century America. The article, "Building Penn's Brand" by Penn instructor George E. Thomas GR'75 in the September 2002 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette, is very clear about the reason Penn's founding date was revised in 1899: Changing Penn's founding date in 1899 using a "mergers-and-acquisitions" train of logic had "the desired effect of putting Penn ahead of Princeton in academic processions." This comports with common sense as Penn had been using 1749 as its founding date for approximately 150 years and then changed that date in response to a three-year alumni initiative which began in 1896, one year after American colleges agreed that processions would place university dignitaries in the order of their schools' founding dates. The complete quote from the Thomas article: "This mergers-and-acquisitions model of institutional history had the desired effect of placing Penn ahead of Princeton in academic processions that in turn represented, in highly schematized form, the pecking order of American higher education. (The year before, in 1895, elite universities banded together to establish a national system of academic regalia that asserted an age- and class-based hierarchy and was most obviously expressed by placement in academic processions.) With the 1740 date, instead of being number five or even six in the line of American higher education, Penn was fourth. . . ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.70.194 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Just because something happens after something else does not imply a post hoc ergo propter hoc relationship. As well, how is using the work of a notable historian biased simply because he writes about his alma mater? It is certainly no more biased than you citing a book entitled "Princeton 1746-1896" by a Princeton alumnus to advance your theories of an earlier founding date for the College of New Jersey. Prof. Edgar Potts Cheyney (*not* Edward Potts Cheyney; as well his last name is Cheyney, not Potts) rightly points out that it was not for reasons of 'besting' other schools in the academic procession (a rather silly reason don't you think?), but was due to a series of publications issued by the federal government on education in America. These were published *before* the issue of precedence in academic processions came up in 1895. (I would refer you to works such as "Benjamin Franklin & the University of Pennsylvania" (cf. p. 236) published in 1893 and available on Google Books.) Cheyney's argument is not that the founding of each colonial college is shrouded in the mists of time, but that there is no consensus about what should be considered a date of foundation. Penn rightly considers its date of foundation to be the one which would be recognized in a U.S. court of law i.e., the date of foundation for the trust that the school administered. As is well-known, the date of 1740 is when the trust was established and a building erected for the Philadelphia Charity School. While Princeton could date its origins to Bucks County, Pennsylvania in 1726 as an outgrowth of what is now Bensalem Presbyterian Church, there are no legal grounds to do so. Unfortunately the article in "The Pennsylvania Gazette" gives little source material and much of the information so readily available now on the internet was not available when Mr. Thomas wrote that article in 2002. Mr. Thomas does also not reference Prof. Cheyney, a former Chair of the History Department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.2.173 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Regardless of how and when this dispute is resolved the edit warring needs to stop NOW before either you're blocked or the article is protected. Work out your differences here, not in an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I would also refer to the "Charters, Statutes and By-laws of the University of Pennsylvania" published in 1826. The footnote on the bottom of page four gives an excellent reason for the use of 1740 as the date of foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.2.173 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Mr. Guidry (ElKevbo), thank you for the suggestion. However, what do you propose if the article note is unfairly biased against the University? The strong bias in the note is from a person on here with an agenda. I merely edited the article to give an alternative side in the dispute. I never erased the core of Princeton's argument for challenging the date, simply the assertion as to why Penn changed it's date of foundation. I also added information challenging Princeton's argument and I used reliable evidence from a noted historical scholar. At the very least, in the interest of fairness, the alternative point of view should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.2.173 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I'll paraphrase the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan in saying, "Professor Cheyney is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts." In my previous paragraph in this "Talk" thread, I attempted to show why every one of the points he cites is factually incorrect. I'll try it again, in list form. (1) Cheyney says, "With the exception of Columbia University, the majority of the American Colonial Colleges do not have clear-cut dates of foundation." That is not true. Every one of the nine colonial colleges has a clear legal charter date. Beyond the charter dates, in general, the events which led to the foundation of each college are well documented by the schools themselves. As I mentioned earlier, Penn has an exceptional archive collection, all of which is available online on the university website. It's an extraordinary, fascinating piece of colonial history. (2) Cheyney says, "As well, Princeton claims its founding date as 1746--the date of its first charter. However, the exact words of the charter are unknown, the number and names of the trustees in the charter are unknown, and no known original is extant." That is not true. I cited earlier the number and exact name of each man on Princeton's first board of trustees. I quoted some passages from the original text and directed you to a source for the remainder of the language. Note that I am not using Wertenbaker's book for anything other than the primary source material found in his appendix; I am not citing any opinion of his regarding the founding date of Penn, Princeton or Columbia. Indeed, as far as I know, Wertenbaker does not have an opinion on the matter. (3) Cheyney says, "Harvard's founding date is *also* the year in which the Massachusetts General Court resolved to establish a fund in a year's time for a 'School or College.'" That is not true, although to be fair to Professor Cheyney, it's mostly a matter of semantics. In 1636, the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony set aside a portion of its budget for the creation of an unnamed college at Newtowne, as Cambridge was then known. No actual construction took place until 1638, after English minister John Harvard passed away, donating to the effort his library and half his estate, 779 pounds sterling. The new college then honored the minister by adopting his name. So, of the three historical points which Professor Cheyney cites, each is demonstrably false. The one concerning Harvard is, as I said, merely a minor matter of semantics. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with Penn's founding date, so I don't know why Cheyney would bring it up. Cheyney appears to be trying to make the case that the roots of the colonial colleges are unclear so choosing their respective founding dates is a matter of opinion, of which he and you are certainly entitled to hold your personal preference. But as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, neither Cheyney, you nor I are entitled to our own facts. By the way, you are right that I twice inadvertently referred to the professor as "Potts" instead of "Cheyney," but I assure you that his first name is Edward, not Edgar. Finally, Mr. George E. Thomas is still an instructor at Penn with an active university e-mail address which can be found on the internet, where I found all the items I cited. He would probably be flattered if you inquired about the research he did in writing his 2002 article, "Building Penn's Brand." Penn historian and university archives director Mark Frazier Lloyd is another potential source of information. He has previously opined that, “In 1899, Penn’s Trustees adopted a resolution that established 1740 as the founding date, but good cases may be made for 1749, when Franklin first convened the Trustees, or 1751, when the first classes were taught, or 1755, when Penn obtained its collegiate charter. The issue, unfortunately, has never been re-examined.” I'm not arguing against the broader observation that reasonable people can have different opinions on this historical event. I'm merely recounting the train of logic related by Thomas and the simple common sense that Penn changing its founding date in 1899 was a consequence of Penn's General Alumni Society conducting a three-year campaign commencing immediately after the 1895 convention of the "Intercollegiate Commission." These are the relevant excerpts from the first few paragraphs of the Thomas article:

As the 19th century entered its final decade, Philadelphia stood as the mightiest manufacturing center in the nation, and the University of Pennsylvania—relocated a quarter-century earlier across the Schuylkill River to West Philadelphia—was its training house and research laboratory. But in the mid-1890s a series of national and local events converged to transform the University’s central narrative from this utilitarian model to a collegiate ideal imitative of England’s Cambridge and Oxford universities, in which the University increasingly saw itself in competition with Eastern elite colleges like Princeton and Harvard. . . .

In the same decade, under a provost trained in the retail world, Penn repositioned itself from an important local university to one with national pretensions. This was symbolized by the simple act of re-dating its founding from 1749 to 1740 and by the complex one of reshaping its campus away from the free Victorian designs of buildings such as College Hall and Frank Furness’s University Library (now the Fisher Fine Arts Library) to the anglophile academic Gothic represented by Cope and Stewardson’s Quadrangle dormitories. Simultaneously, Penn transformed its old identity as workplace to the new leisure age with the construction of the nation’s first student union, Houston Hall, and the city’s first important athletic field, Franklin Field, where Penn’s juggernaut football team would play.

The story of this transformation was carried in new alumni publications aimed at enhancing Penn’s reputation and building loyalty among recent graduates, such as The Alumni Register (later The General Magazine and Historical Chronicle), published by the General Alumni Society starting in 1896; and Old Penn, founded as the official publication of the University in 1902, renamed The Pennsylvania Gazette in 1918, and published by the Alumni Society since 1925. The signal event was the debate over the founding date of the University that began in 1896 when The Alumni Register promoted the story that the University’s origins lay in George Whitefield’s Charity School that was ostensibly founded in 1740. Because this school was to be located in the church building later acquired by the board founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1749 to house his new Academy, it could be claimed as the beginning of the University.

Besides explaining the statue of the impassioned George Whitefield preaching that stands in the Quadrangle, this mergers-and-acquisitions model of institutional history had the desired effect of placing Penn ahead of Princeton in academic processions that in turn represented, in highly schematized form, the pecking order of American higher education. (The year before, in 1895, elite universities banded together to establish a national system of academic regalia that asserted an age- and class-based hierarchy and was most obviously expressed by placement in academic processions.)

With the 1740 date, instead of being number five or even six in the line of American higher education, Penn was fourth, following only Harvard (1636), William and Mary (1693 first fundraising, 1700 first classes), and Yale (1701), and ahead of Princeton (neÈ the College of New Jersey, 1744), and Columbia (originally New York’s King’s College, whose first college classes were held in 1754, antedating Penn’s by a year). In 1899, to settle the issue once and for all, Penn’s board of trustees passed a resolution declaring that henceforth, 1740 would be the official date of the founding of the University “because that was the date of the earliest of the many trusts the University has taken upon itself.”

Not coincidentally, this battle over Penn’s identity began when Penn’s leadership shifted from a scientist, William Pepper, M. D. (provost from 1881 to 1894) to a retailer of sugar, Charles Custis Harrison, who would serve from 1894 to 1910. Instead of celebrating the scientific and creative achievements of the laboratory and the classroom, Harrison’s marketers shifted Penn’s identity from the research arm of Philadelphia’s industrial culture to its place among the nation’s socially elite academic institutions. Ironically, while Penn was allying itself with the national elite culture, much that was innovative in Penn’s actual history was temporarily lost.

By redating Penn’s roots, the University obscured the connection to Franklin’s transforming vision that shaped American higher education, expressed in his Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, written in 1749. Lost as well was the significance of the University’s ethnically and religiously diverse student population, who were here in Philadelphia because of William Penn’s policy of religious toleration that set his commonwealth apart from other American colonies. By 1760, Franklin’s college and academy was drawing from other colonies and nations, differing from the monocultures of the New England colleges that typified college life in the American colonies.

---

Already you encounter a few problems with your refutation of Cheyney. You say that the dates of foundations are clear-cut, however you are defining the date of foundation as the date of charter. Neither Harvard nor Pennsylvania ever used their dates of charter as their dates of foundation. As well, the above quote about the dates of foundation which you attribute to Cheyney is in fact mine, which makes me wonder if you have read him. Again, my point was that not all of the colonial colleges consider their date of foundation to be the date of their charter, hence it is not a 'clear-cut matter'. My apologies with regard to Cheyney's first name. I stand corrected on that point. After a second look at my bookshelf you are indeed correct on that one point. Regarding the emphasis on the 1740 date after 1895, you have yet to comment on the work I listed from 1893. While the change from the 1749 to the 1740 date did have the effect of moving Penn ahead in line for academic processions it was not the major motivating factor for the change. Penn has always attracted a small portion of Philadelphia's upper class, though it never saw itself as an élite school. It's always been a much more egalitarian institution than Yale, Dartmouth, or Princeton (cf. Burt's "The Perennial Philadelphians"). It's only in recent decades that it has really become a 'prestige school'.

Regarding the 'shift' or 're-orientation' occurring at Penn in the last decade of the 19th century, you are correct that this was the case, but the reasons you give are not entirely in line with University history. If you look at Penn's history it has been dominated by its medical school for much of it. The College (of Philadelphia, later of Arts & Sciences) never quite recovered from the split following the War of Independence. At times there were only a dozen or so students in the College while the School of Medicine attracted hundreds from all over the eastern seaboard. The move out to the old Blockley land in West Philadelphia in the 1870s, the ensuing building boom, and the re-structuring of the curriculum was an attempt to reposition the school away from being a medical college with a liberal arts wing attached toward being a full university based upon the European model. It was indeed trying to become a nationally-renowned university in much the same way that other schools were around this time. (Princeton, after all, changed its name from the College of New Jersey to Princeton University in 1896.) The 1880s saw the mileage of railroad tracks in the U.S. more than double and this expansion allowed Americans to travel all over the country with ease. It's only natural that our institutions of higher learning sought to take advantage of this and attempted to expand by attracting students from across the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.2.173 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two related, but entirely separate, questions. The first question is, “What is Penn’s founding date?” The second question is, “Why did Penn change it in 1899?”

[1] The answer to, “What is Penn’s founding date?” is simply, “It’s whatever Penn wants to say it is.” There is no third-party arbiter of this issue. There is no historian who promulgates the final answer. Penn could say that its founding date is 1701 because that is when William Penn issued his Charter of the City of Philadelphia, or perhaps 1682 when he first arrived on the shores of the Delaware River. As you know, 1740 is actually Penn’s third official founding date, after 1750, which appeared on Penn’s initial corporate seal, and then 1749, which was used for about 140 years.

On the other hand, Penn choosing 1740 as its founding date does not mean that historians or other observers are obligated to accept that year as an unchallenged historical fact. Professor Cheyney himself states, “There are six years, 1740, 1743, 1749, 1751, 1753 and 1755, for any one of which a case can be made as the proper date of origin of the University of Pennsylvania.” Penn historian and archivist Mark Frazier Lloyd prefers the options of 1749, 1751 and 1755, as explained previously.

In comparing alternate choices for founding dates, the default option for the overwhelming majority of American colleges is their charter date. The charter establishes corporate existence and begins the legal life of any organization. In the case of academic institutions, a collegiate charter is required to grant degrees recognized by the state. Historians can have different opinions on an institution’s founding date, but the only year which has any legal standing is its charter date.

Thus, when a college or historian compares institutions by charter date, it is on firm ground argumentatively. Columbia University claims to be America’s fifth college and it is unambiguously true that, when Columbia obtained its collegiate charter and began collegiate classes in 1754, there were only four chartered institutions of higher education existent in the British colonies. That makes Columbia the nation’s fifth college.

Seven of the nine colonial colleges use their legal charter date as their founding date. Harvard University does not but, in defense of Harvard’s line of reasoning, when classes began sometime around 1640, there was literally nobody around to grant the nascent college a formal charter. The city of Boston was still within a few years of its own founding and there was no regular communication with putative colonial administration in London. Harvard had been conducting collegiate classes for about a decade by the time its formal charter was obtained in 1650, the latter date which was nevertheless early enough to make the school the first corporation in the New World. Regardless of the specific year chosen, Harvard is the oldest college in America by a considerable margin.

Here’s another way to look at the importance of a college’s charter date as a marker of its founding date. There are at least ten American colleges today which can credibly trace their beginnings directly to a secondary school established before the American revolution. These include St. John’s College 1696, Washington College 1723, Moravian College 1742, the University of Delaware 1743, Washington & Lee University 1749, Salem College 1772, Dickinson College 1773 and Hampden-Sydney College 1775. None of these institutions is considered a “colonial college” even though they were conducting classes before 1776. Hampden-Sydney College was even conducting college classes then.

Why are they not considered colonial colleges by historians? Because none of them was granted a collegiate charter before the revolution. So if a college can clearly trace its ancestry to a school actually conducting classes before 1776, then its lack of a collegiate charter must be determinative that it is not a colonial college. And of course, Penn’s link to 1740 is based upon an inactive, unnamed trust established in that year which did not lead to any secondary school classes actually being taught until 1751. If Penn’s rationale is sufficient to establish 1740 as a founding date, then by the same principle, the ten American colleges referenced above should be considered colonial colleges. But they are not. By the same logic, Penn’s connection to 1740 is equally weak.

[2] The second question is, “Why did Penn change its founding date roughly a century and a half into its existence?” As with the first question, there is room for a difference of opinion on the response. But, here again, common sense provides the best answer. Do you mean to suggest that the learned men who ran the University of Pennsylvania in the late nineteenth century needed the bureaucrats at the United States Commissioner of Education to tell them the actual founding date of their own institution? That’s kind of sad, don’t you think?

In any event, the Commissioner’s book did not reveal any new facts previously unknown. It merely proposed a new train of thought to link Penn’s origins with the efforts to build a church and charity school for George Whitefield. Those efforts began in 1740 and, therefore, that year “may be said to be the beginning of the University of Pennsylvania.” Sure, 1740 could be thusly considered but, as Professor Cheyney and archivist Lloyd say, so could other years.

The book was written for the Commissioner of Education by Francis Newton Thorpe, who was a graduate alumnus of Penn and a contemporary of Professor Cheyney in Penn’s history department. So, when Thorpe and Cheyney are arguing in favor of switching to an earlier founding date, they are talking about their own alma mater and employer, essentially trying to advance their own alma mater and employer in the timeline hierarchy of American higher education. The same could be said of sugar tycoon Charles Custis Harrison (BA 1862, MA 1865, honorary LLD 1911), the provost at Penn in 1899 who drove the process of changing the founding date to 1740, “practically pledging the Board of Trustees to that date,” in Cheyney’s words. Not that it matters, but Wertenbaker is not an alumnus of Princeton and, given the choice of its charter date of 1746 and the earlier 1726 origin of the Log College, Princeton officially uses the later date; nobody here is arguing for Princeton using 1726 despite the connection of five members of Princeton’s first board of trustees coming from the Log College. Wertenbaker states no opinion on the subject.

The most important reason why Penn changed its founding date in 1899 is stated by Cheyney as follows: “Late in 1898, a committee of the Society of the Alumni proposed to the Board of Trustees the celebration of the next year, 1890, as the sesquicentennial of the University, which would of course have involved the acceptance of the year 1740 as the foundation date.” Keep in mind that the Penn General Alumni Society had by that time been conducting a campaign for three years to change the founding date, as described by George E. Thomas in his article, “Building Penn’s Brand.” This despite the fact that the same alumni society, formed in 1835, had celebrated Penn’s centennial in 1849.

As mentioned above about Columbia, any university fixing its founding date as its charter date is on unassailable ground. Only two colonial colleges do not use their charter date as their founding date. Harvard we’ve discussed. That leaves only Penn. You and others are free to disagree of course but, in my opinion, the cascade of potential founding dates in order of defensibility goes like this: (1) legal collegiate charter date; (2) date that collegiate classes began; (3) date that collegiate organizational process began; (4) date that organizational process began for a predecessor noncollegiate teaching institution. In Penn’s case, that would be: (1) 1755; (2) 1755; (3) 1755; (4) 1749. These years are simple to explain and easy to defend. The train of thought to get to 1740 is very protracted, best evidenced by the fact that we are having this debate at all and the fact that Cheyney needs to devote an entire section of his book to the topic. Nobody is similarly debating the founding dates of Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Rutgers or Dartmouth .

Moreover, choosing 1740 creates rhetorical problems because Penn also considers Benjamin Franklin as its "founder." The brilliant man did not even propose an institution until 1749, the same year he first organized the Board of Trustees for the Academy of Philadelphia. It’s not internally consistent to call Franklin Penn’s founder and simultaneously claim a founding date of 1740.

Frankly, Penn’s claim of 1740 is embarrassing to a great university. When anybody --whether Thorpe, Cheyney or Harrison -- needs several paragraphs to explain the connection with 1740, you know that they’re pretty far out on a limb of the logic tree. The reason Penn clings to the tenuous thread with 1740 is obvious to anybody who understands human nature. I’ll let Professor Cheyney himself summarize: “The fact that this date places Pennsylvania earlier in accepted origin than either of its two nearest compeers –- Princeton, which has settled on 1746 as its foundation date, and Columbia, which has chosen 1754 –- has doubtless been a satisfaction to Pennsylvanians who, like all who live in a young country, are avid for antiquity and, like all who are nearly on an equality, are jealous of precedence.”

I like how Cheyney characterizes Princeton as “settling on” 1746 and Columbia “selecting” 1754 as founding dates. They did not “settle on” or “select” those years; those are their exact legal charter dates. Only Penn is in the business of settling on or selecting its founding date, changing from 1750 to 1749 to 1740, in order to get ahead of universities of which it is “jealous of precedence.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.70.194 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Pennsylvania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this article has outstanding clean-up tags (at least five "citation needed"s, for example) and a four-month-old neutrality warning that's yet to be resolved, this nomination is unfortunately a bit premature. Figures like those in the sentence "Penn also counts 115 members of the United States National Academies, 79 members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, eight National Medal of Science laureates, 108 Sloan Fellows, 30 members of the American Philosophical Society, and 170 Guggenheim Fellowships" also appear to require citation. Finally, the lead appears to need work; WP:LEAD recommends a maximum of four paragraphs.

Since it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any edits to this article yet, I'm closing this review for now so that it can be worked on to meet the GA criteria. Obviously, this article would be a great one to get to GA--I hope work continues! Thanks to everybody who's gotten it this far, and just let me know if you have any questions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Penn State

The "distinguish" tag at the top is needlessly verbose:

This article is about the private Philadelphia-based Ivy League university colloquially referred to as "Penn". For the public university located in State College, Pennsylvania, and colloquially known as "Penn State", see Pennsylvania State University.

Since the two universities have distinct (albeit similar) names, a much shorter version is appropriate:

Not to be confused with Pennsylvania State University.

It's true that some people confuse the two universities. But they make up a small proportion of the readers of this article. Making all visitors to the page read a lengthy explanation of what Penn isn't before we explain what it is helps the few by inconveniencing the many. People who are still confused can compare the lead paragraph with the lead of the linked Penn State article, and get a more thorough explanation than we're offering now. That's the great thing about hypertext, which is a core strength of Wikipedia. Let's not squander it. TypoBoy (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in "Stupid Americans" controversy

When video of Jonathan Gruber (economist) at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics became a big topic of interest because of a comment about "stupid americans", the University did for a time remove that video so that people could not see it.

You know what they say: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". There was not crime that had taken place, but UPenn did make more people want to see it after they realized they no longer could. In the end, the video has been re-instated. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Pennsylvania. 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/20110716020111/http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100 to http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116181127/http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2012_world_report.pdf to http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/sir_2012_world_report.pdf

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Pennsylvania. 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/20110511100108/http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61 to http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)