Talk:Columbia University

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
Take out the unofficially people's university for Palestine, it is not a real thing MegaSportsFan (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ — Please provide a source saying it is not a real thing. The current sources for it are articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Unofficially renamed"
The statement that "students" (who or how is not specified) "unofficially renamed" Columbia University is not supported by reliable sources.

Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, Twitter is not a reliable source.

The opinion piece in the Washington Examiner says, "an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed 'The People’s University for Palestine', not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

The Columbia Spectator photo essay says, "students at the encampment crafted a sign reading 'Welcome to the People’s University for Palestine'", not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

Before this dubious statement is added to the article, reliable sources and sufficient context and explanation must be included. Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reworded it as it does not have RS saying “renamed”. However, the info is sourced by RS that it is used by students on campus, including mention by the student-run newspaper. So inclusion can be assumed, but not “renamed”. I agree on that aspect. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of adding the text in question again, how about you make your proposals here on this talk page? Can you cite a reliable source that supports your contention that students are calling the school this? As I point out above, the articles you previously cited only say this is the name of the encampment or is printed on a banner. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Washington Examiner, your own quote states it in words. Therefore, per WP:ONUS, you need to find a source countering it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * — I removed “renamed”, so what exactly are you challenging? Following BRD, the “Bold” was addition of rename, “Revert” was your removal, “discussion” was agreement between editors (myself and you) that the sources do not say “rename”. The fix was removing it said rename. Since you have now removed it, please directly state what exactly you are challenging, as you have yet to actually explain the new issue with the text. (This is an edit conflict text I was adding during your reply.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Now, it has exact wording sourced by RS. The Washington Examiner directly states the “camp” / protest area is dubbed (i.e. named) that. Therefore, I changed the text to say that the camp and protest is that per students name. That is per RS. You can discuss this further if you wish to remove it, but you either (1) need to explain how the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source regarding Columbia University or (2) start a true discussion to remove it (it being the sentence about protests at the university along with the dubbed name for the “camp”) as it is sourced based on WP:RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Camp name
Editors are in dispute about whether the ongoing protests ate Columbia University should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

This topic has been edit warred over, and RS including articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator, citing the protests have been removed and challenged.

I propose adding the following sentence (a single sentence), which is directly sourced by reliable secondary sources:

“In April 2024, amid protests of Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp “The People’s University for Palestine”.

To reiterate, mention of the protests in general have been challenged by editors and there is an ongoing edit war pertaining whether or not the protests themselves are notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is a decent compromise as it is a single sentence regarding the protests, which are sourced by RS. Per the Washington Examiner, “And, because no modern leftist cause is complete without a few days of outdoor camping, an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed “The People’s University for Palestine”, which is the source for the camp/tent area being called that term, which is also seen in the Columbia Daily Spectator article (Columbia Universities own newspaper) and the post by Visegrád 24. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a P.S. note, the editor in complete challenge to any mention of the protests in the article is, who has directly requested a consensus about whether or not they are notable for inclusion on the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The paragraph as you propose it would read: "In 2010, the School of International and Public Affairs, which was previously a part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, became an independent faculty. In April 2024, amid protests of Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp "The People’s University for Palestine"." The insertion is confusing because context is clearly missing: What protest camp? Which students? The paragraph does not say. Again, you need reliable sources. The Washington Examiner opinion piece is not a reliable source, for the reasons set forth at WP:RSEDITORIAL. If you are able to identify reliable sources, the better place may be in Columbia University, a section already about this subject. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be added there. And I dispute your reasoning that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reliability of The Washington Examiner has no consensus per WP:RSP. If we do include a mention of the current turmoil on campus, the arrests are the far more notable aspect (per the focus of coverage in reliable sources), so that is what we'd want to mention. The addition of a "controversies" section is a very bad idea per WP:CRITSECTION — any mention would go at the end of the history section.  Sdkb  talk 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally make no issue of the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Rather, the issue is that this is an opinion piece. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WeatherWriter, could you explain why you think this does not apply here? If this is a notable, credible statement, can you not come up with a reliable source? --Bsherr (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the entire controversies section should be integrated into the history section. --Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just flagging that I made mention of the protests in the student life section earlier today, i think before this edit war. Sawitontwitter (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All three editors currently in this discussion may qualify as WP:INVOLVED editors, as all three editors have commented in some fashion on my talk page in an off-article talk page discussion. A “third-party” editor commenting would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED is about administrators refraining from taking administrative action in discussions in which they are involved as an editor. I am not an administrator. But I welcome any other opinions. --Bsherr (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I though “WP:INVOLVED” linked to about involved-editors and something with WP:Third opinion, not admins. My bad. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Clerical note, Bsherr combined sections and I am breaking out sections again for the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherWriter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this dispute is still active but I agree that the sources don't come anywhere close to justify including this information in the lede of this article. I don't think they even justify including it in the body of the article.
 * And I agree that the Washington Examiner appears to be a very low quality source that probably doesn't meet our reliability standards. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section
While we are on the subject, there seems to be a breadth problem in the recently added controversies section. Recent student protests have involved labor relations, Iran, private prisons, tuition, etc., not just the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the 2024 pro-Palestinian demonstration is the only subject mentioned. How do we resolve this? --Bsherr (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I can try to build out this section if appropriate. This recent conflict was covered my most major U.S. media outelts and caught my attention. Sawitontwitter (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very bad idea. Bsherr's comment is exactly why we avoid criticism sections — they are a magnet for recentist cruft. The appropriate course of action is to merge anything sufficiently due into the history section and then remove the controversies section, not to try to build out the controversies section further. Past controversies like the 1968 arrests are already covered there in a roughly appropriate level of detail.  Sdkb  talk 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll avoid edits for a few days to see how situation unfolds and whether it warrants further coverage. If not, can delete criticisms section and fold into history section.
 * Story is being covered on most major news outlets in America and New York Times is currently providing live updates from on campus. I think it's also possible this gets its own subhead, and can rename the curent "Controversies" one Sawitontwitter (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason not to put it in the currently-one-sentence 21st century subsection? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think that's best, go for it. Sawitontwitter (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well said, Sdkb. These incidents are part of the university's history and should be placed into proper historical context. For the current situation, it certainly seems that a congressional hearing and mass demonstrations that include arrests and the partial shutdown of the campus warrant a brief discussion in the history section. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is one of balance. For example, Student activism at Columbia University received exponentially more coverage in reliable sources, yet isn't mentioned at all. Which is understandable, because, if one were to rank the events in Columbia's history, both of these events would be of low significance relative to what is already covered. So how do we resolve it? --Bsherr (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then that should probably also be (very briefly) mentioned in the article, too. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it reflects a problematic bias toward recent events. This section giving a broad encyclopedic treatment of three centuries of history now ends with "the university canceled classes on Monday, April 22." That degree of detail is very inconsistent with the rest of the section. --Bsherr (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the rest of the section needs to be improved. This article should not be solely about positive events and good news about the university. If there are other notable negative events then they should be included, too. I acknowledge that it's challenging to keep the history section in this article both reasonably short and appropriately comprehensive but it appears that we've struck a very poor balance by omitting critical information that should be included. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it not correct that classes were switched to remote delivery on April 22 rather than canceled? That seems to be what I am seeing in the sources, but the article as written does not say that. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right. That may be my fault and I've corrected it in the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * By all means, current controversies should be covered and the section needs to be expanded significantly, with a sub-section for each major controversy. For example, the targeting of Jewish students by pro-Hamas activists/students at Columbia, needs to be covered. Columbia University has a long standing tradition for defending human rights, yet they seem to be ignoring this idea by letting pro-Hamas activists/students incite riots by screaming, "Death to Israel!" --"Death to the United States!", and seem to be aloof to the idea that Hamas, and other such Muslim groups, have very little, if not zero, tolerance for the idea of women's rights, gay rights, etc. Is the faculty at Columbia University endorsing Hamas? Many people think so. This is indeed a controversy and should not be suppressed by any editor who attempts to diminish these issues in such a cavalier manner by referring to them as "cruft", etc. There are plenty of reliable sources out there to cover such issues. .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

When to reference date of source inline in infobox
There is inconsistency about when to reference the date of the source inline for information in the infobox. It is present for money figures but not for headcounts. I, for one, think the reference links would be sufficient to provide that information, and suggest omitting it inline for all the data. Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024
Please add Union Theological Seminary to the list of the graduate/professional schools (And mention: affiliate, similar to Teachers College). The reference is Columbia University website: https://www.columbia.edu/content/academics/schools Thanks Tonyak3 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Million thanks Ramihan3 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * was founded in 1836. However, it became affiliate with Colombia in 1926 (despite being independenm).I think that can be important to clarify. Ramihan3 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024
Requires editing according to manuel to style. Removal of non-free material that is used improperly is also required. 64.189.18.29 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory article
Apparently much of the LDEO article was copyvio from a long time ago so the article has been reset to a *very* early version. I added some photos I took myself years ago, but the article itself needs a LOT of help if anyone has some time. dm (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)