Talk:Claremont Graduate University/Archive 1

Alums
Claiming as alumni three people whose only connection to the school is that they received honorary degrees is pretty lame. The reason it matters if someone noteworthy is an alum is that presumably the school played a part in making him into the noteworthy person he became. Someone who just shows up one day -- after becoming noteworthy, no less -- for a ceremony doesn't have this kind of connection. Besides, some people have dozens of honorary degrees and is makes no sense to say that they are alumni of each school which gave them one.

The lists of notable alumni and faculty need some information about why these individuals are notable. Aside from Peter Drucker and, to a lesser extent, Kip Thorne (who's only an honorary alum anyway) none of the people listed has much name recognition among the public.
 * Agreed. I'm going to rename the faculty list "notable faculty" and remove all the profs w/o articles. I also removed Mohammed Arkoun, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, and Robert Williamson from the list because I couldn't find evidence that they taught at CGU. This doesn't mean that everyone left on the list is notable, however. MrVibrating (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cgulogo.jpg
Image:Cgulogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate list of noted people
There is a list of notable alumni and faculty at both the main article and at List of Claremont Graduate University people. There is not a need for duplicate information and the list at the main article is beginning to overwhelm the overall article. I am removing but wanted to explain here and open up for further discussion. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Significant Revision
The whole contents of both the University and the Noted People pages have been revised. --  Wildcursive (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim about WASC complaint
One or more unregistered editors have tried several times to add material to this article about an unspecified student complaint that was allegedly made to WASC. Unfortunately, he or she has not ever supplied a source for this claim. This is an encyclopedia article so material must be adequately supported by reliable sources. It's possible that the material shouldn't be included in this article because it's simply not important enough but without a source we can't even make that judgment. ElKevbo (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our colleague(s) is still not participating in discussion here or anywhere else but is citing this as a reference. It appears that this edit is being based on a user-submitted comment to that website.  That is obviously not a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? I am confused: The statement that was written in this section read: "In 2012, a formal student complaint was submitted to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The complaint was unresolved, questioning the quality/value of the CGU Teacher preparation program." How is such statement unreliable and irrelevant? It can be true, factual and significant to research and for information purposes. Please explain what appears to be "censorship" of factual information to wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonsmith (talk • contribs) 23:07, September 20, 2015‎
 * First, the statement doesn't cite a source. Second, since it merely describes an unknown "complaint" by unknown parties for unknown reasons, it doesn't appear to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia article.  Third, without any details it's pure conjecture to state anything beyond "a complaint was filed."  ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

???What if the source is the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), Barbara-Davis Gross, PhD? What if the source is the Associate Provost of Claremont Graduate University, Jacob Adams? What if the source is Ilene Foster, PhD, Claremont Graduate University Teacher Education program? Will that help to identify the sources you are referring? I thought in Wikipedia such information is allowed and others can back it up or refute such information? Merely describing "an unknown 'complaint' by unknown parties for unknown reasons,...''' as you state, does not mean that the information is non-factual. Therefore, such information should not be censored from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.10.128 (talk • contribs) 12:30, September 21, 2015‎
 * The only "sources" we've been provided so far are unverified claims from an unknown person. Simply naming people is a far cry from actually providing reliable sources.  Please don't readd this material to this article until you can provide legitimate, verifiable sources.  ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you verify (ElKevbo) that the source written by simonsmith is untrue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.10.128 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided a source for anyone to verify. ElKevbo (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * -Elkevbo: You are inaccurate. You have not proven if the information is non-factual. You are no longer editing, but is contributing to censorship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4102:ABFE:BC45:8FB6:3301:D4D0 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Simonsmith: Did Elkevbo verify that the information you presented is non-factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly8967 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

'''Why hasn't Elkevbo responded to the above questions addressed? He continues to declare that a "source" has not been verified, but can not refute that CGU Teacher Education had an official student complaint to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Why is he so insistent on witholding information to Wikipedia readers that appears to be factual in the case of CGU Teacher Education program?''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.211.33 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Elkevbo is burnt out and removed himself from Wikipedia review/comment. He needed to remove himself because he was not engaging in proper editing for information presented in Wikipedia. those who encouraged him ought to be ashamed of themselves as well. Arrogance ought not to be bliss by Wikipedia editors when accurate information is being presented. Touche,not.... Elkevbo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.211.33 (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Claremont Graduate 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/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp
 * Added tag to http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oldest all-graduate institution in the USA?
This is not true. UCSF(1864) for once, but there might be others, hence removed claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 21:26, May 14, 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is true or not but it's definitely not sourced in this article in either the lede or the body so I will remove the (apparently contentious) claim until someone can provide a solid source. ElKevbo (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * CGU was established specifically as an all-graduate institution in 1925. UCSF was not. Furthermore, CGU continues to be the oldest continually-operating, all-graduate institution in the United States. This fact is not "contentious" except to people who don't know what they're talking about. Wikkedout (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a reliable source supporting this assertion! You're making a historical claim so of course the best evidence would be something from a historian.  I'd expect something like this to be included in some of the standard U.S. higher ed history texts by authors like John Thelin and Christopher Lucas.  ElKevbo (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any "historical claim" since the history speaks for itself and I am not making the claim. I am simply defending the historical reality. An absence of source that corresponds with what you deem "reliable" doesn't make the historical reality of the school any less factual. Since you are so interested in disputing the claim, provide a source that refutes it. Until you can do that, your reply is dubious, at best. Wikkedout (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, don't accuse other editors of vandalism when you merely disagree with them. And don't edit war, either.
 * Second, the source that you've cited in your edit isn't reliable. On that website's About page, it tells us that "While CareerProfiles.info has a staff of volunteer editors, much of the content presented on our website has gratiously [sic] been provided by career oriented educators, professionals, organizations and individuals like yourself." This kind of claim should be easy to find in higher education history books and articles.
 * I've already looked in a few of the books that I have at hand - an older Thelin, one of Lucas's, and a more recent book by an author whose name I don't remember - and I can't find anything there to substantiate this claim. But those are very general higher ed history books so perhaps we'd need to turn to more specialized literature focused on graduate education or something more regionally focused.  A properly described claim made by the institution ("The university claims to be...") wouldn't be a bad stop-gap until something more substantial is found.
 * Finally, your claims about "not making any 'historical claim'" and "the history speaks for itself" are patently ridiculous. You're making a claim and the burden is on you to provide sufficient evidence supporting the claim. ElKevbo (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only ridiculous one here is you and the person that originally made the edit. You literally have no source to back your vandalism and I have already provided one through a simple search. You have both provided none. There are many more that I could cite that would corroborate the same information, and the burden is upon you (and Eccekevin) to locate the relevant sources to uphold your positions.
 * If you can't abide by the simple rules of Wikipedia and display something approaching maturity, reason, objectivity, and logic, perhaps you shouldn't be a participant here. Your judgement is clearly in question and you seem to prefer it that way, in which case I will have to take this situation to the higher-ups if you continue this vandalism. You have been warned. Wikkedout (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to provide evidence supporting your assertion. So far all you've done is provide extremely weak sources.  If this fact is well-known and worth including in an encyclopedia article, I'm sure that you'll be able to find some high quality sources.  Until then, the material needs to remain out of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a non comprehensive list of graduate only institutions that were founded before 1924 as such and are still in operation: UCSF (founded in 1864 as a medical and doctoral school, existed since then) Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (1915), A.T. Still University (1892), Rockefeller University (1915), University of California, Hastings College of the Law (1878), Air Force Institute of Technology (1919), Naval Postgraduate School(1909), Naval War College (1884), United States Army War College (1901).


 * Sorry but you are wrong. I have already provided the links to back up my claims. You clearly have no idea what a graduate-only institution is. But please continue your vandalism. I'm not interested in engaging with your or anyone else's ignorance. Wikkedout (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Typo in short description
The subtitle or short description has a typo “pricvate”. I tried to fix it but the page is locked and Wikipedia said this is where I suggest fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalebbn (talk • contribs) 08:00, January 19, 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)