Talk:Columbia University/Archive 3

Nobel count ... again
I hate to rehash this, but I don't think it's been adequately solved. The page says:

87 Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with Columbia in some way, more than any other university in the world.

Yet if the official count on Wikipedia says 76, and Cambridge's and Chicago's official counts say 82/81 respectively, then this statement is false. If we compared the unofficial counts (Cambridge 88, Columbia 87 and Chicago still 81) Columbia still does not have more than any other university in the world, at least not on counts we will all agree on. For that reason, I think it is less weasely to write:

87 Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with Columbia in some way, one of the highest counts in the world.

JDnCoke (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No source is given for the statement that the count is higher than for any other university in the world.


 * No source is given for the statement that the count is 87.


 * Nobel laureates by university affiliation states that the "As of October 2007, the official count is 76." However, the only source given for that is a web page that only covers 1906-2004, and includes 72 names, so it's not clear what source was used to update the count to the year 2007.


 * This sort of statistic is silly to begin with, but, particularly with something so arbitrary (what counts as "affiliation?"), it must be sourced. Must, must, must. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Is somebody here going to add a section about the Iranian President's controversial upcoming visit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.66.182 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be too soon to determine whether such an addition would be noteworthy; it could turn out to be a bout of Recentism. Yavoh 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I chopped out a bunch of POV text to the previously added section. --NeilN 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dito, I think that something needs to be added; you will need another page (perhaps several) to add the whole thing apart from Media hype (perhaps even a section on that too). Using statements like the "nineteenth President of Columbia University on June 1, 2002" to define the in-grained culture of 2007 which smacks of an Eductional dictatorship of 5 years to benfit ones own kin, or that with simmilar ideals. The Uni which now operates under a 1787 charter that places the institution under a private board of trustees for wonders like the "School of Journalism" to 'Educate' people and burn all others; and for the benfit of other media controlers in my country. Reading the Bio and introduction at CU gives a better ideal of what this 'debait' was about but compaired with what I just saw in the old TV Media is "BS", a discrace to all, and that is being nice about this fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.191.222 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again removing POV text. Anyone objects, please let me know. --NeilN 04:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox is Gone
I had to go back a couple revisions to see the article with the infobox intact. Looks like it got messed up. Anyone know how to fix it? tharsaile 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure we'd invite Hitler to speak, says Columbia dean
See and. Should this be mentioned in this article? Revolutionaryluddite 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is already absurdly overburdened with info. This should be added to the page on the dean in question, John H. Coatsworth. Cjs2111 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Revolutionaryluddite 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"No gays" remark recieved strong applause
Should the fact that the President of Iran's hotly condemned "Iran has no gays" comment recieved strong applause and shouts of support by the Columbia University student audience be included? One person (possibly two or more, I'm not sure) booed. Revolutionaryluddite 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your personal interpretation of the background noise in a YouTube video notwithstanding, almost all news sources (many of which had personal representatives at the event) reported that the reaction was one of laughter and boos. If there was applause, I can imagine it was limited and meant in irony. Moreover, the treatment of the Ahmadinejad visit already takes up far too much space on a page that already unduly burdened with excessive accounts of other very recent controversies. Cjs2111 21:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a student at the university, and I can affirm that they were, in fact, a mixture of laughter and boos. Not that primary sources have any place on Wikipedia...Yavoh 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the crowd jeering the remarks. Absentminded 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad's title
Is is appropriate to use "His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" rather than just his name? Several times now an IP address has added "His Excellency", but I feel that it violates NPOV. Yavoh 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's generally referred to as "President" with a captial P in the media. Revolutionaryluddite 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Student population
I've updated the student figures. The total population is higher than the sum of under and post graduates because it includes 2258 non-degree students.Absentminded 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup at Columbia
This will be the second of the meetups with a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues. We will also have activities scheduled after the session, with dinner at a local restaurant and (weather permitting) some late-night astronomy thrown in.

We are also in discussion on other possible activities like a special guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History or the Columbia University libraries. --Pharos (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Street Location
I came here looking for the streets that Columbia is on. I know it is bounded by many streets but it would be useful for people like me from outside NYC to have early on in the article something like "bounded by 110th and Morningside" or somesuch. Tim O&#39;Leary (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Wikipedia editing etiquette, but FYI a general idea of Columbia's location is usually given as 116th and Broadway. That's where the main gates are, Columbia's subway stop is also at that location, and College Walk is 116th between Broadway and Amsterdam.  I dunno if anyone wants to add the location of "116th and Broadway" onto the article or if that's even important, so I won't touch it.  --Rab2148 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

March NYC Meetup at Columbia
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list..--Pharos (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review
I have quick failed this nomination, as the article was not ready to be nominated. There are many sections that need references, as they currently read as original research. There is also a cleanup banner, which is one of the quick fail criteria. The existing references (and any new ones that are added) need to be consistently formatted. Currently, many references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Citing sources for the template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Attender vs. attendee
the alumni/ae section refers to 'attenders'. A) it's just an awkward, ugly word. B) in general conversational terms, you don't have to be a graduate to be an alum. institutions from which one did not graduate are only too happy to think of one as an alum when they want your money. C) the image of alexander hamilton lists him as an 'attendee'. ??Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John Dewey.jpg
The image Image:John Dewey.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New York City Wikipedian Meetup November 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia ♥ Art bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right Wing & Recentist Slant?
The article seems weighted excessively towards recent (and relatively unimportant) events such as the uproar over the Ahmedinijad speech, most of which are covered in a not terribly even-handed fashion. The whole article has a right wing spin to it. The ROTC section, in particular, seems to serve little purpose but as an excuse to gripe about them mean ol' liberals who supposedly run the university. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
The controversy section is non-neutral and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It needs to be summarized and merged into the history section. See WP:CSECTION for more. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in general needs pretty severe amputation of content in a wide variety of sections to comply with WP:SUMMARY. Some can be moved off to daughter articles like History of Columbia University but much simply needs to be removed - this article isn't a sounding board of every grievance from every constituency on every conceivable controversy nor a proxy admissions brochure delineating all the fun campus activities and what a generally great place it is to go to school. This is an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:BOOSTER. I'll be making some more major revisions in the days ahead to make this article less of an embarassment for such a noted university. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Brief sections about each of these controversies are not merely appropriate, they are essential to a balanced article.Historicist (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

About the student publications
The article includes a long list of student publications, some of more significance than the others. The "Blue & White" is listed as having been established in 1890. I have a comment which is original research and hence doesn't belong in the article per se: I was a student from 1975-1981 and no magazine by that name existed during that time. In all fairness, however, the Blue & White's masthead does say "Est. 1890" and the publication has been around long enough to be a fixture of the university community. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TV, Movies, Fictitious Columbians
In order to cut down on the size, I spun off these three sections into a new article. See: Columbia University in Films and Television Foolsscholar (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I can't seem to make the edits, nor can I report a false positive. I suppose this edit is lost in Wikipedia's e-bureaucracy. Foolsscholar (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Success! Please help out with this new article and be sure to help out with more spin-off articles. Only you can prevent wildfires, and help make this page more organized. Foolsscholar (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mid-importance in WP New York?
I assigned it the same importance level as was given Cornell. --AFriedman (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge and summarize "History" and "Controversies" sections
The "controversies" section needs to be merged into history, just as other controversial episodes are done at other universities (Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). Furthermore, both sections need to be significantly summarized. I would recommend spinning out the merged history-controversies section into a History of Columbia University and basically taking the lead or a summary of that article and placing on this page. Discuss. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Five "Founders"? Only four listed
The article refers at least twice to five "Founding Fathers" or similar, but only four are listed in the "History" section. Did one get lost in editing, or is the count erroneous? Shoreranger (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by 68.198.56.201
I noticed that 68.198.56.201 recently made two edits to this page. I think that most (or all) of the data which he entered is incorrect and should be undone. The user 68.198.56.201 has a long history of entering incorrect ranking information in articles about universities, as you can see by checking his previous contributions.--Stacalusa (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, the edits incorrect edits from 68.198.56.201 have already been reverted by ElKevbo.--Stacalusa (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Student housing?
Unlike most other big name colleges and universities, Columbia does not have a section talking about or explaining the student housing, i.e. dormitories, off-campus housing, availibility of dorm housing, dorm system and etcetera... Could someone do a little research on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.77.189 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim to have the most Nobel Laureates is incorrect
The substantial claim to have the most nobel laureates than any other institution in the world is incorrect, and in fact this claim is the University of Cambridge's and not Columbia's. These claims should be deleted, and no substantial or reliable references have been given to support these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.216.95 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

2000 people in CORE?
no way. citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.228.83 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Common Application
It states on Columbia's website that the Common Application is now accepted for applicants in the fall of 2010. This conflicts with the 2011 date currently posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.82.143 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance of a Latin American Professor?
When he testified before congress, Jose Figueres Ferrer said "our [meaning Latin American] illustrious professors disappear, lugubriously, from the halls of the University of Columbia, in New York." Does anybody know what Figeres is referring to? If so, should this be included in information about UC? Mvblair (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This should not be removed until you provide substantiation for your claims. What sources do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.51.30 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

SIPA Ranking
I inserted MIA(5th) and PhD(3rd) in the ranking table. SIPA is mainly an Internaltional Relations school both in terms of its history and program. Student composition:MIA(700),MPA(220). Year of establishment:MIA(1946),MPA(1977). Only to show MPA Ranking (14th)is misleading and does not reflect the true nature of the school. Ron--98.14.213.224 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Ron, source you've cited is obscure and unrecognizable. Trust me, I learned this sometime ago. Also, all schools are compared under USNews and as a general category. Using an obscure source and specifying certain programs only serve to discredit the ranking. For streamlining reasons and fairness to all other schools under comparison, I will have to add back the USNews ranking. You are free to insert these rankings on the SIPA page. Zoroastrama100 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I inserted (Public Affairs only) next to the ranking for clarification.Ron--98.14.213.233 (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

King's College, Nova Scotia
The history section of that college's website says: Anglican Loyalists who moved to Nova Scotia in the wake of the Revolution, some of whom who had strong connections with the old King's, founded the University of King's College in Windsor. The fact that 'some' of the loyalists happened to have connections with the old king's college does not make a connection between Columbia and the King's College in Nova Scotia. It might make sense in the page for that college, but, here it gives the mistaken impression that the old King's college was resuscitated in Nova Scotia, which is not the case. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is the case depends on whom you ask - that's the point of contention. As far as King's is concerned, that's exactly what happened. No doubt Columbia disagrees, but it's not within our ambit to make a judgment one way or the other. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that even the King's website does not say that their college was a continuation or restablishment of the pre-revolutionary war King's of New York City. The only connection is that some of the Anglican loyalists who moved to Nova Scotia after the war and established a king's college had strong connections with the old Kings. Many, apparently, had no such connection. To spin this into a re-establishment is quite a stretch. There are literally hundreds of King's Colleges around, presumably creating King's Colleges is what Anglican loyalists do in their spare time. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is pretentious and needs rewriting
This article is a spectacular example of excessive boosterism. The lead is among the worst examples of this, where a huge paragraph is dedicated solely to the #s of people who have this or that award (see It's not a score board or horse race). Other university articles do this to an extent, of course, which is why the boosterism page was created; but Columbia's article is much worse, with tons of ranking-this or superlative-that, constant comparisons to other elite universities, which universities its tied with, which universities it beats, etc. This is terribly true of the lead and the rankings section (both of which violate the "Avoid undue weight" policy). It's pretentious and someone really needs to prune out all the boosterism. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.153.42.56, 11 June 2011
The assertion that Columbia is affiliated with more Nobel Laureates is incorrect, and the citation is also not appear to be a credible source.

According to Columbia's own website (http://www.columbia.edu/content/nobel-laureates.html), the University is affiliated with 79 individuals who have won the Prize. As a counter-example, the University of Chicago is affiliated with 85 Nobel Laureates (http://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel/). You may have to quickly count for yourself to verify it, for they do not list a simple number.

I request that this edit be made to accurately reflect the truth. As a suggestion, I would simply list that it is affiliated with 79 Nobel Laureates (which is how other universities are maintained). Thank you.

80.153.42.56 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. I see a similar claim at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation of 97 unofficial affiliates is uncited. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit has been undone by Nowhereman86, so I'm reopening this request. I have to say, I don't really see the value in the the addtion; a website called "thebestcolleges.org" doesn't exactly sound like a reliable source, especially as they don't explain or back up the claim in the slightest, simply stating it as fact. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur--that's definitely not a reliable source; I'm re-removing the sentence and "citation" from the article and marking this as answered. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Times Higher Education Rankings, published by Reuters and taken as a reliable reference by almost every university page on Wikipedia, clearly supports the claim that Columbia has been affilated with more Nobel prize winners than any other university. I've cited the information on the page and you can look for yourself by clicking on the following link and selecting Columbia from the list. (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/north-america.html) Nowhereman86 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Formatting and standardization of rankings
I have restored the standardized rankings template supported by WP:UNI and used in University FAs, which was removed here with an invalid rationale. I have also re-converted the space-consuming departmental rankings table into prose, which is also a best practice of FAs. Cheers —Eustress talk 23:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"A Million Mogadishus" controversy
I would like some guidance regarding this entry on the Columbia University page. I have added this entry to the Columbia University page twice, and it was quickly deleted.

I am new to wikipedia and I believe that I have followed the suggested guidelines. I believe that this article if factual and well referenced. The entry has three paragraphs. The first one indicates what happened, the second one provides proof that the first event was not taken out of context and that it reflects an accurate opinion of the professor. The third paragraph was added to address a comment made by another editor when the entry was first deleted.

Unfortunately, I can only access wikipedia sporadically, so please understand if it takes a while for me to respond to your comments. Lares57 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (I am the editor who reverted the additions, both times I think...) Three paragraphs devoted to this trivial event is *way* too much for this article. One paragraph would be way too much for this trivial event in this article. I think even a single sentence is too much for this trivial event but others may think that is a bit extreme.
 * This event was extraordinarily minor in the history of this old (by U.S. standards) university, so minor it's not even worth mentioning in this article. If there is an article that focuses on the history of the university, especially one focusing on its contemporary history, then this may belong there.
 * Further, the most recent edit added some original research and biased point of view by trying to link this incident to Larry Summer's shortened stint as president of Harvard. If reliable sources have made that connection this it might be fair game for a Wikipedia article. If not, it doesn't belong here. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this was a minor event. It was indicative of the opinions of more than one person in the University and is illustrative of other similar events at Columbia. In addition, the University did not take disciplinary action against the Professor, which indicates (at least) implicit consent. Therefore, I believe that this event deserves inclusion in the article. The most recent edit was an attempt to address your original comment to the article. It just shows how another Ivy League University handled a much smaller controversy with a much harsher punishment. I’m willing to try to make the article more concise and/or have you or others re-word the article. Lares57 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Your reasons for wanting to include this incident are not only unconvincing but also your own personal opinion unsupported by the evidence.
 * But I'm not the keeper of this article. Let's wait a bit and see if others chime in with their opinions and judgments. If no one does so, we can drop a line at WT:UNI or somewhere else if you'd prefer a different or additional venue. ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail how to see this incident is in any way notable in the grand arc of the university's history. Has it attracted international press coverage like the Ahmadinejad talk? Have classes been cancelled like during the riots of the 1960s? Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy and an encyclopedia article about a university is most certainly not a coatrack to enumerate all the impolitic and controversial events which have ever occurred in its confines. Needless to say, I support the removal of this non-notable and recentist topic. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to focus this discussion to help expedite a decision on this issue. When I put this section together, I was trying to accurately describe the events surrounding the Million Mogadishus controversy using Wikipedia-accepted sources. I believe that it does not contain original research or a biased point of view. If you do not agree with this, I am willing to re-write the section, or have another contributor re-write this section. Therefore, I think our discussion does not need to focus on the content of the section. The only issue is whether to include this controversy or not. I believe that this section describes notable events that happened in Columbia University that were important enough to garner widespread public attention and reporting in the press. The Columbia page already had a section entitled “Controversies and student demonstrations.” This would just be another controversy being added to the existing list. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I do not understand all the rules regarding which topics should be included. But my understanding of an encyclopedia is that it should include an encyclopedic amount of information regarding the topic including large items such as a description of each campus and small items such as the school colors. This controversy was not as big as the Ahmadinejad talk or the riots in the 1960s, but I don’t think that the topic should be required to be that important in order to be included. Lares57 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a controversial statement of a single faculty member, not any action of the university itself. This is an article about the university. The only argument you've articulated is "a Columbia faculty member said something controversial and the university president (appropriately, IMHO) declined to take disciplinary action." I fail to see how the lack of action on the part of the university is at all notable to warrant inclusion. If that faculty member is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then I suggest you take the content there. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. This would be a good reason to exclude this event from the Columbia page. On the other hand, I still believe that this was a notable event and that people interested in this event or people researching this event, would come to the Columbia page to read about what has happened. Therefore, I believe it would be useful to include this event on the Columbia page. Is there a way that we can get some additional opinions from other contributors? Lares57 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a good argument for the inclusion of this event in the Columbia page and Madcoverboy made a good argument for the removal of this event. I would like to hear the opinions of the other contributors and I am willing to follow the consensus opinion.Lares57 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Technology & Entrepreneurship section
Does this section strike anyone else as undue weight and recentist? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ranking Removal
Please keep an eye on IP address 125.24.*. They have recently made several attempts to remove Washington Monthly (Wamo_NU = 26) and Forbes (Forbes = 42) from the Infobox US university ranking. I recommend taking additional prevention measures beyond edit reversion if they strike again. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect mascot
Should be Roaree the Lion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.129 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Alma Mater
The explosion took place in (May) 1970, not 1968. There were no campus demonstrations comparable to those of 1968 and 1969 on the Columbia campus in 1970.

I was a Columbia student during this period. I was living in Carman Hall in 1970. In the photo of Butler Library, Carman is the 6 story building to the right and John Jay is the building to the left. Relative to the panoramic view, Butler is at the camera's end of the central grassy strip, Carman and Furnald (another undergraduate residence hall) are to the left, and the statue is just below the center of the picture (the dark object just below the base of the Low Library columns). Three other undergraduate residence halls (John Jay, Livingston (now Wallach), and Hartley) were on the other side of Butler. Furnald is visible at the far left and Hartley at the far right of the panoramic view. As can be seen in the panoramic view, much of the space between Low and Butler is undeveloped, with little to absorb sound. The noise of the explosion was heard (and felt) by most of the students living on the campus side of the dorms.

Until repaired, the most noticeable damage was the deformation of the right (relative to the seated statue) rear of the throne which was pushed out by seven inches (personal estimate). The statue has since been repaired and undergone a subsequent restoration. Sdwizard (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Columbia Political Review
Columbia Political Review needs to be merged: there is no indication that this is a notable journal in its own right. It deserves a mention in the main article at the most. Note recent edit to remove promotional text, and note the possible COI: two accounts in the recent history have been blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of a Latin American Professor?
Pulled from archives:
 * When he testified before congress, Jose Figueres Ferrer said "our [meaning Latin American] illustrious professors disappear, lugubriously, from the halls of the University of Columbia, in New York." Does anybody know what Figeres is referring to? If so, should this be included in information about UC? Mvblair (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This should not be removed until you provide substantiation for your claims. What sources do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.51.30 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a copy of this text on Jose Figueres Ferrer's Wikipedia entry as well as this website. I believe it comes from the Truman library. Can anybody shed some more light on this? Is this in reference to the Jesus de Galindez disappearance? This caused an incredible stir. Perhaps I will add de Galindez to the list of notable Columbia people (perhaps better to add to the page "List of Columbia University People"). Any guidance or thoughts? Mvblair (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After a little research, I added Jesus de Galindez to the list of notable people, referencing a Time magazine article. Being a disappeared professor mentioned in Time seems pretty notable. Mvblair (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The information I added about Jesus de Galindez was removed (citing "[i](Undid revision 511895185 by Mvblair (talk)Galindez belongs neither w/political nor literary notables; in any event, polemical and unsubstantiated statement made is inappropriate heremadestatement)[/i]"). I requested clarification from the person who removed it last week. There has been no response, so I will add it again because Jesus de Galindez was a well-known political writer. The statements are not unsubstantiated and not political, as they are verified with the link. Mvblair (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Could I get a little more clarification about why the information about Jesus de Galindez is being removed? I have heard two different reasons from the same user: 1) Galindez is not a political or literary notable, and 2) the information is unsubstantiated. Galindez is a notable figure because he was mentioned in Time magazine as well as other contemporary and current sources. There was even a movie made about the incident. Because of the contemporary news coverage, Galindez's job as an exiled Basque Government delegate and UN observer, I would think he deserves mention on this page. With regards to the information being unsubstantiated, perhaps the user deleting the comments could do a quick Google search regarding Galindez or check the reference that was included with the statement. If this is a case of the information being added in the wrong place, would it be advisable to add the information about Galindez into a separate paragraph in the notable persons section? If not, where would it be appropriate to add information about Galindez on the Colombia University page? Thanks for any help and guidance you could provide. Mvblair (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm an editor from WikiProject Universities responding to a request for help that was posted there. Looking at the back and forth between Mvblair and the IP user, I feel that the IP user needs to post a more substantial reply here on the talk page than the rather terse statements left in the edit summaries. From what I can gather from those edit summaries, I think the IP user's concern is that Jesus de Galindez, while a notable alumus worthy of inclusion in the lengthy List of Columbia University people, may not be notable enough for the short summary of alumni that is in the actual Columbia University article. For schools with such a large number of notable alumni, the alumni section has typically been spun off as its own page while the number of alumni included in the main article is distilled to only the most notable (i.e. presidents, famous inventors, influential cultural figures) in order to keep the overall length of the university article manageable. Hope this helps! -Mabeenot (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Mabeenot. I suppose it seems to me that Galindez's case deserves some mention here. At the time there was a huge uproar and there is continued interest today. I suppose that if people like Donald Verrilli, Robert Andrews and Howard Kock are mentioned, it seems like there should be a place for Galindez. He seems to have the bonafides as a politician, activist, and writer. Mvblair (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mabeenot. While the information is interesting, it is not noteworthy enough to include in this summary article. Galindez might have been well known but, with notable writers and poets like Salinger, Ginsberg, Lorca, Gluck, Sinclair, Auster amongst its alumni, this doesn't really fit. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He was more than a writer, though. He was a UN observer, Basque leader, and lecturer. He doesn't fit in with Salinger and Ginsberg, but don't you think he fits in with Robert Andrews and Howard Kock? Thanks for the reply by the way, RegentsPark. Mvblair (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with well known people, the names that people will recognize. While Howard Koch is probably not recognizable, Casablanca is. Millikan won the nobel prize but I don't think he should be here either. Either way, Galindez is too esoteric for this summary article. --regentspark (comment) 21:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My counter to that would be that while Galindez's name is not well-known, forced disappearances were well-known. Being esoteric is not a good argument for exclusion. However, I really that I'm starting to get argumentative, and seeing as I seem to be the only one saying he should be in this article, I know when to leave well-enough alone! Perhaps if I can find some other sources, I will look into opening a section in the "controversies" section, but I have never been able to find information regarding Columbia's involvement in the investigation, so that probably wouldn't be appropriate at this point. Mvblair (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Bible verse for Motto in English
It says (Psalm 36:10), but "In Thy light shall we see light" is last half of verse 9 from King James Version. Hasol753 01:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed
From User talk:72.201.59.56:

Just because it is the lede section doesn't mean you leave out Citation Needed. It references the institution, but I cannot find where it proves the statement on the institutions page. In fact, the report from 2013 (most recent) seems to invalidate the claim, unless I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.59.56 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Are you posting this on your own talk page?? Anyway, you can use as of for a dated statement. As for WP:CITELEAD, references shouldn't be in the lead section anyway. 108.27.194.64 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 36 one external links on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110123215722/http://cuarts.com:80/alumni/basicsearch to http://www.cuarts.com/alumni/basicsearch
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101031134348/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130603120849/http://www.shanghairanking.com:80/Institution.jsp?param=Columbia%20University to http://www.shanghairanking.com/Institution.jsp?param=Columbia%20University
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302151857/http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61 to http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100804190118/http://web.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/trip/surveyreport06-07.pdf?svr=www to http://web.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/trip/surveyreport06-07.pdf?svr=www
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615200340/http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members%20By%20Parent%20InstitutionC?OpenView&Start=30 to http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members%20By%20Parent%20InstitutionC?OpenView&Start=30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110207180508/http://www.adpscolumbia.org:80/home.php to http://www.adpscolumbia.org/home.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060804021747/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/review/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/review
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009182446/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/english/cjlc/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/cjlc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727191716/http://www.publiuscu.org/about-publius/ to http://www.publiuscu.org/about-publius/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060804020230/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/thefed/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100624020241/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/rhapsody/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/rhapsody/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060629214610/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/ctv to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ctv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725182951/http://circa.cmunce.org/drupal/node/7 to http://circa.cmunce.org/drupal/node/7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725183345/http://circa.cmunce.org/drupal/node/19 to http://circa.cmunce.org/drupal/node/19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101210084331/http://ctice.columbia.edu:80/content/engaged-entrepreneurship to http://ctice.columbia.edu/content/engaged-entrepreneurship
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100908162123/http://www.thedeal.com:80/newsweekly/2010/june-7-2010/vc-mecca-on-the-hudson.php to http://www.thedeal.com/newsweekly/2010/june-7-2010/vc-mecca-on-the-hudson.php#bottom
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111011090230/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067134/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067134/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110709082142/http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/spr99/34a.html to http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/spr99/34a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150624152440/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cuo/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cuo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100622012640/http://www.cumb.org:80/orgo-night-a-columbia-university-marching-band-tradition/ to http://www.cumb.org/orgo-night-a-columbia-university-marching-band-tradition/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129032509/http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/affiliated_instituti_29928.asp to http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/affiliated_instituti_29928.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205131845/http://www.afrotc.com/college-life/college/?recruiter_id=860 to http://www.afrotc.com/college-life/college/?recruiter_id=860
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140427060511/http://home.manhattan.edu:80/~afrotc/CROSSTOWNS.htm to http://home.manhattan.edu/~afrotc/CROSSTOWNS.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130618044804/http://www.sunymaritime.edu/NROTC/Command%20Information/Command.aspx/ to http://www.sunymaritime.edu/NROTC/Command%20Information/Command.aspx/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070802104405/https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/colleges-univers.cfm to https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/colleges-univers.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100622012640/http://www.cumb.org:80/orgo-night-a-columbia-university-marching-band-tradition/ to http://www.cumb.org/orgo-night-a-columbia-university-marching-band-tradition/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140205043716/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110316234404/http://www.fulbright.org/node/152 to http://www.fulbright.org/node/152
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121024044002/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/secretary/pdf_and_word/Honorary_Degree_Recipients_1945-2010.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/secretary/pdf_and_word/Honorary_Degree_Recipients_1945-2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051125112223/http://usinfo.org:80/usia/exchanges.state.gov/education/educationusa/leaders.htm to http://usinfo.org/usia/exchanges.state.gov/education/educationusa/leaders.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110503062237/http://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/aboutus/leadership/bios/stevens.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/leadership/bios/stevens.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101029053249/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/secretary/bios/pandit/index.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/secretary/bios/pandit/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120404162252/http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/chazen/journal/article/137235/Google+Conquers+China:+An+Interview+with+Kai-Fu+Lee to http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/chazen/journal/article/137235/Google+Conquers+China%3A+An+Interview+with+Kai-Fu+Lee
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110109042332/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/physics/about/main/one/michaelpupin.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/about/main/one/michaelpupin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120901102124/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/broadway/stars/hart_l.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/broadway/stars/hart_l.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060909114704/http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/stand_columbia/phdleaders1861-1900.html to http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/stand_columbia/phdleaders1861-1900.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101102155611/http://eye.columbiaspectator.com:80/article/2010/10/07/columbias-web-30 to http://eye.columbiaspectator.com/article/2010/10/07/columbias-web-30

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110307091227/http://eye.columbiaspectator.com:80/article/2011/02/10/myth-college-sweetheart to http://eye.columbiaspectator.com/article/2011/02/10/myth-college-sweetheart
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://stv.columbia.edu/assets/STV's%20Success%20Stories.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071111035057/http://www.columbiaspectator.com:80/node/23146 to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/23146
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080917214649/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=MGQ2Y2YyYTAxOTliMzQ3NjE2MmY1YzE3ZTI2YzIwMjQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ2Y2YyYTAxOTliMzQ3NjE2MmY1YzE3ZTI2YzIwMjQ=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://stv.columbia.edu/assets/STV's%20Success%20Stories.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709082142/http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/spr99/34a.html to http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/spr99/34a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129032509/http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/affiliated_instituti_29928.asp to http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/affiliated_instituti_29928.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427060511/http://home.manhattan.edu/~afrotc/CROSSTOWNS.htm to http://home.manhattan.edu/~afrotc/CROSSTOWNS.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901102124/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/broadway/stars/hart_l.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/broadway/stars/hart_l.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Columbia University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070613170734/http://stv.columbia.edu/assets/STV's%20Success%20Stories.pdf to http://stv.columbia.edu/assets/STV's%20Success%20Stories.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Columbia 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunymaritime.edu/NROTC/Command%20Information/Command.aspx/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/colleges-univers.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Columbia is the nation's fifth oldest institution of higher learning
I am starting this discussion section at the request of Mr. Malik Shabazz, who has deleted my proposed footnote about Columbia University's status as the fifth oldest institution of higher learning in the American colonies. I suggested my footnote because, although almost all historians agree that Columbia is the nation's fifth oldest college, there is an interesting point of disagreement coming from the University of Pennsylvania.

Very few, if any, historians disagree that the three oldest American colleges are, in order, Harvard (proposed by the Massachusetts General Assembly in 1636, chartered in 1650), William & Mary (chartered in 1693) and Yale (chartered in 1701). Furthermore, the vast majority of historians agree that the next two oldest colleges are Princeton (chartered in 1746) and Columbia (chartered in 1754), making them fourth and fifth in order, respectively. However, Penn maintains a different version of events. The University of Pennsylvania has officially recognized three founding dates over the course of its history (1750, 1749 and 1740). The currently used founding date of 1740 was adopted in 1899 in order to make Penn appear older than Princeton. American universities in 1895 had agreed that academic processions would have institutions march in the order in which they were founded, making each school's founding date a more conspicuous feature. The University of Pennsylvania was chartered in 1755 and, on that basis, would be the sixth oldest institution of higher learning.

I suggested my footnote because this is an interesting backstory to Columbia's status as the fifth oldest college. Mr. Shabazz apparently objects to discussion of this topic, perhaps because as an alumnus of Columbia, he finds the Penn point of view unsupportable. I make no argument that Penn's train of logic is sound or not. Indeed, I am clear that Penn is pretty much on its own island in terms of the opinion of other historians. I am respectfully requesting that Mr. Shabazz stop deleting my proposed footnote. Thank you. Regards, Laila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.163.34 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This sounds like original research and something, if supporting sources can be found, that is better suited for articles on UPenn. I agree with keeping the footnote off this page. Grko3 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Grko3. No, this isn't original research. Well, it's not exactly "research" and it certainly isn't original. Here's a good article from the Penn Gazette titled "Building Penn's Brand" from George Thomas, a historian at Penn, which covers all this material, as well as other aspects of Penn's early history. Building Penn's Brand Furthermore, all this subject matter is already covered to varying degrees in the Wiki articles on Penn and the Ivy League. All I'm doing is pointing out the self-evident mathematical fact that, if Princeton is older than Columbia and Penn further claims to be older than Princeton, then if that latter supposition is accepted, Columbia is not the fifth oldest college in America, but rather sixth. That is the train of thought forwarded by Penn's board of trustees in 1899, although obviously Columbia, Princeton and most historians disagree. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's clearly relevant to whether Columbia is the fifth oldest. --Laila

Hi, Malik. I have tried very hard to comply with your requests. You initially deleted my footnote because it was, in your words, "unsourced" and "off-topic." So I went back and added a number of sources. I certainly included sources for everything I said which would not be common knowledge to a student of the early history of American education. I then started this talk page, as you requested, to explain why the footnote was on topic. I've spelled out the logic of my proposed language in as clear and simple language as I can:

The University of Pennsylvania officially claims a founding date of 1740, which would make Columbia University the sixth oldest American college, not the fifth.

Now, as I've said repeatedly, very few if any historians outside of Penn's history department accept Penn's version of events. And of course neither Princeton nor Columbia do, as each considers Princeton and Columbia the fourth and fifth oldest colleges, respectively. But that consensus outside of Philadelphia does not change the fact that a major American university maintains an official position which is at odds with Columbia's status as fifth oldest. So my language is not "trivia" (in your words) only suitable for Penn's wiki page. It is directly relevant to the sentence on Columbia's page which states that Columbia is the fifth oldest American institution of higher learning.

I presume that you object to my footnote so strenuously because, as a Columbia alumnus yourself, you fear that any discussion of Penn's opinion either supports that point of view or otherwise undermines Columbia's claim to be fifth. But historians are just about unanimous that Columbia is fifth, despite Penn's claim. So your fears are not grounded. For goodness' sake, my proposed language is a footnote. Viewers can read it if they're interested or they can move on to the next sentence if they're not. I've done everything that you've requested. I am politely asking you to please stop deleting my footnote. Thank you. --Laila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.163.34 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I reverted your edit. The text and explanation are way too complicated and border on WP:OR. And the text clearly says fifth chartered institution which is, apparently, not disputed. I don't see the point of this.--regentspark (comment) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Laila, you keep adding to your text, which is no longer unsourced, but is still off-topic. It's a long digression about how the University of Pennsylvania has played games with its history. Why do you keep trying to add it to Columbia University? Why have you never tried to add it to University of Pennsylvania, where it might be relevant? None of the sources you cite (or other sources) question Columbia's position as fifth oldest, do they? Unless they do, this will remain off-topic and disruptive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with Laila on this one. Malik, you obviously have not read the University of Pennsylvania page.  The interesting aspects of Penn's founding date are indeed recounted in great detail there, as well as in various forms on the Princeton page and the Ivy League page.  Penn claims an official founding date of 1740.  That makes it relevant to where Princeton and Columbia sit in the list of oldest colleges.  Princeton and Columbia have solid counter-arguments, but Laila's footnote is hardly irrelvant or off-topic to a sentence about that very subject.  Malik, I've read several of your posts, including those on the Black Lives Matter page.  I actually agree with your politics but you, my friend, are an obsessive-compulsive.  You are not the hall monitor for the Columbia page.  Just take a deep breath and let it go.  The world will not end if there is one footnote that you don't like.  The sun will come up tomorrow, I promise.  Save your energy for more important pages, such as Black Lives Matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.42.106 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The footnote is pure WP:OR. You should let it go. --regentspark (comment) 01:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for suspecting your motives because it's so self-evident that the proposed footnote is not original research. Even Malik concedes that, after a couple revisions, it's now acceptably sourced.  Indeed, one of the sources, the article "Building Penn's Brand," essentially summarizes and supports the entire footnote.  I'm suspicious why Malik first objects to the footnote on the basis of being unsourced.   Then, after it's been better sourced, he says it's off topic.  Now, you say it's original research.  At least Malik is forthcoming that he's an alumnus of Columbia.  Presumably, he doesn't want to add language which in any manner questions Columbia's claim to be fifth oldest, or even puts it into the context of what Penn claims.  If you, too, are arguing because you're a Columbia graduate, then neither of you are unbiased.  Now that you've brought up the topic of Wikipedia policies, both of you are violating the principle of a neutral point of view.  The proposed footnote spells out both sides of the issue and yet you two want to censor it.  Since when is censorship so popular among Columbia alumni?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.42.106 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop already. My opposition to your nonsense has nothing to do with my having attended Columbia -- it has to do with the fact that this is an article about Columbia University, and you want to add a lot of trivia about the University of Pennsylvania. It's off-topic. It's also original research, but I don't care because it's off-topic. Please read WP:IDHT and stop already. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Seal
wants to use a low quality (vector) image of the seal from the official Identity Guidelines of the University. I think a better version will be this (raster) version from a scan.

What do you thinks is the best version? RaphaelQS (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I submitted a request at the Illustration Workshop for it be cleaned up. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 18:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what they can do with such a low quality, but let's wait --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue290 does not state that the shield is out of use. http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf. The source states that it is not commonly used. Regardless, Blue290 states that the seal is only used by trustees and is "controlled by the Office of the Secretary". The Yale shield isn't standard use either see link: http://identity.yale.edu/web, however, no one would reasonably suggest that a "Y" logo is appropriate for the Yale University page. Ivy League schools are differentiated by color and shield. There should be some form of iconographic uniformity among Ivy League articles, no? I can say from personal experience I have never seen the current seal displayed on any branded merchandise, marketing campaigns, etc. By comparison look at official Columbia branded merchandise: http://columbia.bncollege.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SubcategoryView?parentCatId=40369&categoryId=40480&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&parentSubCatIdFlag=true&storeId=10053&topCatId=40350. Pretty much all traditional representations of Columbia are represented through the shield. The insistence on using the seal seems to be an out of touch and misunderstood conclusion. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the seal isn't used in merchandising and marketing, it's the official emblem of the university and is reserved for the official documents like diplomas. --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this helpful but I'm a student at Columbia (check my IP) and I've never seen that seal my entire time here. The blue shield is pretty much the school's "heraldry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.252.78 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the seal is used or not, WikiProject Universities sets the seal as the primary image for the infobox with the university's logo at the bottom. If you look here and here, they use the seals on the diplomas. Therefore, the seal should be used and the shield can be in the history section... although the shield may not pass WP:NFCC due to being displayed as a decoration. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 04:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone disagrees with the simplistic point that a "seal" is prescribed by the guidelines of WikiProject. However, WikiProject doesn't elaborate further on the requirement for specifically a "seal". It's merely a term used in the model infobox. Thus, the main issue at hand is the unreasonable interpretation of the guidelines. Certainly, if the seal is unrecognizable, it is a detriment to the page. The Yale shield does not appear on the diploma and yet it is used as the primary image of the university's article presumably because it is invariably associated with the University. Evidently, university seals are not uniformly used across articles if the seal extraneous. The editing on this page is demonstrating an unreasonable subservience to extreme interpretations of the guidelines. Further, both and  don't seem to have sufficient knowledge and experience of Ivy/Columbia customs making it particularly difficult to communicate this dilemma. Just food for thought. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I only care about the quality of the article. If the shield is better than the seal for representing the university, I'm okay with that. I just don't see why we should use the shield used for marketing and merchandising and not the official emblem of the university, the seal. This is breaking a consensus of the project for no good reason. --RaphaelQS (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that it is making a single exception to the consensus of the project for good reason. Namely, the confusion over the appropriate iconography for one particular school (Columbia). Yale additionally does not follow the consensus of the project. The Yale shield is used and not the seal. The shield is furthermore the clearer image and it is an official emblem of the university - just not as common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk • contribs) 05:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Columbia 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/20110521210513/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008014849/http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/2438 to http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/2438
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723010024/http://afghanistanjusticeproject.org/UNMappingReportAfghanistan-3.pdf to http://afghanistanjusticeproject.org/UNMappingReportAfghanistan-3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724084931/http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/1932 to http://news.columbia.edu/oncampus/1932

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) 09:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding Neil Gorsuch to Notable Alumni
I think we should add Neil Gorsuch with photo to the Notable Alumni section. Seems appropriate considering RBG, Obama and the Roosevelts are there as well. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If he becomes a member of the Supreme Court, sure. But as nominee, I think it's just premature.  No rush - let's wait. Contributor321 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. He's currently listed in both List of Columbia College people and List of Columbia University people in politics, military and law, as he should be. It would be appropriate to add him to this article when (if?) he is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, not before then. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alumni section
I don't think the number of US Senators is correct. Only two? It's hard to believe that. Is there any source?
 * I believe that is the current US Senators. The total is much larger and can be seen on the Notable Alumni page. 74.108.158.164 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Five Founding Fathers attended Columbia College"
Oh really? Historically impossible, just as none of them was born in the United States. Reliable sources, please. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What? There are several colleges (like this one) that were founded before the U.S. declared independence and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the later documents (Articles of Confederation, Constitution) were born in the colonies.  The article could be better sourced and it would be better if all five of the individuals were specifically named - I can only find Robert R. Livingston (chancellor) and Alexander Hamilton in this article - but it's not at all impossible or difficult to believe that people who attended this institution were central in founding the country. ElKevbo (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (I found two more: Gouverneur Morris and John Jay. ElKevbo (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC))
 * (Fifth one: Egbert Benson. They're all listed at List of Columbia University people in the section appropriately titled "Founding Fathers of the United States." ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC))


 * But they all attended King's College, not Columbia College, just as they were not born in the United States. They couldn't have attended Columbia College because it didn't exist at the time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's the same institution. Please read this article and pay careful attention to the history part where the college changed its name after the Revolutionary War (when it was no longer desirable to be associated with the King of England). ElKevbo (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Official Name
There's been some back and forth about the official name of the university in the edits--the official name of Columbia University is "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York". This change was made by order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York by application of The Trustees of Columbia College in the City of New York on 25 Aug 1912. It's the official name you need to use for Columbia University if you want to get a grant (http://spa.columbia.edu/proposals/institutional-information), sue or be sued by Columbia University (https://unionization.provost.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/NLRB%20Decision.pdf), and it's the name on the degrees and Pulitzer Prizes issued (http://www.wikicu.com/File:SEASdiploma2003.jpg; http://www.wikicu.com/File:PupinPulitzer.gif). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.106.117 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York" is the name of the corporate entity that manages the university. The university is officially "Columbia University in the City of New York" (cf. http://www.columbia.edu/content/history.html). --regentspark (comment) 22:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The editors who are continuing to edit war over this ( What are you doing? You know better!) have been posting additional sources in their edit summaries. In addition to the links shared immediately above, an editor arguing that the official name is "Columbia University in the City of New York" has shared this link from the Office of the Secretary of the University. On the opposing side, this link from the university's Faculty Handbook has been shared in favor of the longer "Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York."

If the question on the table is "What is the official, legal name of the institution?" then those arguing for the longer name including "Trustees of" have presented much more convincing evidence. So far, the sources that have been presented by the other side have been not been closely linked to the organization's formal, legal name whereas the other side's documents have been explicit and formal. In fact, I think the evidence presented so far is so convincing that I don't see a need for the discussion to continue as long as the discussion is confined to determining the official, legal name of the institution. Whether that official, legal name needs to be included in the lead of this article is a separate discussion and if that is what editors think should be discussed then I really wish that those who are invested in this discussion will speak up and participate! ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Columbia 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/bio.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dlmplanners.org/notes/pdf/The%20Steps%20at%20Low%20Library.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506034150/http://www.empire.state.ny.us/columbia to http://www.empire.state.ny.us/columbia/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stv.columbia.edu/assets/STV%27s%20Success%20Stories.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stv.columbia.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=15&Itemid=34
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ2Y2YyYTAxOTliMzQ3NjE2MmY1YzE3ZTI2YzIwMjQ%3D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/chazen/journal/article/137235/Google%2BConquers%2BChina%3A%2BAn%2BInterview%2Bwith%2BKai-Fu%2BLee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Columbia 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 tag to http://gsas.columbia.edu/content/gsas-glance
 * Added tag to portalhttp://education-portal.com/top_journalism_colleges.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614084125/http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/sites/cct/files/cct_spring_1968.pdf to http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/sites/cct/files/cct_spring_1968.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005204854/http://history.cultural-china.com/en/50History7158.html to http://history.cultural-china.com/en/50History7158.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Not a defining characteristic of the university..."
The university has produced the 2nd most billionaires worldwide behind only Harvard University. The university is located in New York City and has a renowned Economics and Financial Engineering departments as well as a globally recognized business school whose motto is "Right at the center of Business". But humanities major from Duke Softlavender says it not a "defining characteristic" of the University and leftist JTS student activist editor Malik Shabazz say its doesn't follow WP:LEAD when Columbia's success in producing successful business graduates is obviously significant and relevant to the topic. One need look no further than University pages across the Wikipedia platform to see that the financial success of graduates is relevant to the lead. 2606:A000:BEC3:5B00:9DF7:AD3F:B706:D47E (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The information does not belong in the lead. You can add it to the "Notable people" section of the article, where it would be relevant. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the time to exact retribution on the Columbia admissions office, Dukie. From the Penn page: "In addition, Penn has produced a significant number of Fortune 500 CEOs, in third place worldwide after Harvard and Stanford.[13][14]"; From the Stanford page: "Stanford faculty and alumni have founded a large number of companies that produce more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world.[34]" From the Harvard page: "...whose history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities.[7]". All of these are entirely relevant to the page topic. You're obstructing significant information from appearing in the lead. 2606:A000:BEC3:5B00:9DF7:AD3F:B706:D47E (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to mention this treasure from the Harvard lead: "Harvard's $34.5 billion financial endowment is the largest of any academic institution.[6]". 2606:A000:BEC3:5B00:9DF7:AD3F:B706:D47E (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender and Malik Shabazz are having serious troubles justifying their reverts and edit war considering the university's successful business graduates are entirely relevant to the lead as they are to all university pages. Their personal views are interfering significantly with any path towards consensus. 2606:A000:BEC3:5B00:9DF7:AD3F:B706:D47E (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender and Malik Shabazz continue to obstruct discourse surrounding a completely valid and relevant edit to the lead of this page. The edit concerns the financial success of Columbia alumni. Both editors have failed to provide any specific guidelines that disagree with the edit. Both editors are allowing their personal motives and collegiality toward other editors to supersede an objective POV towards editing. 2606:A000:BEC3:5B00:D1FE:408:2FC9:F5B4 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To our unregistered friend: Please read WP:LEAD, the guideline concerning the opening section of articles. The lead section is supposed to summarize the most important parts of the article. Does the article mention elsewhere that Columbia is known for producing billionaires? No. Does it belong in the lead section, then, according to Wikipedia guidelines? No. The only person "obstructing" anything is you, with your incessant edit-warring about trivia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Disputed text
The following text is currently being edit-warred over.

It is often cited as one of the world's most prestigious universities.

I am putting this here for discussion to prevent further edit warring. epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The dispute is an obvious case of Vandalism. There is an IP user from the University of Chicago engaging in sock puppetry (IPs: 159.63.167.146, 205.208.120.169, and 128.135.100.114). All of these IPs are associated with the University of Chicago.  He has engaged in several disputed edits on the UC Berkeley and UChicago pages (he seems to be affiliated with both these universities in some way).74.108.157.211 (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the text is problematical in that it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, promotional, and weasely. "Often cited" cannot objectively be deduced from a mere six citations from merely the past two years. We need to state facts rather than editorializing. I think it should be stated per actual facts, such as: "[Since 2015,] Columbia has been cited by [venues including] Time, Business Insider, Times Higher Education (THE), Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, and Academic Ranking of World Universities as being among the world's most prestigious universities." -- Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided an NYT measure from 7 years ago (was reverted during the dispute with UChicago IP), which recognized Columbia as among the most prestigious and reputable. Further Time Magazine rated Columbia as the 2nd most prestigious university after Harvard based on a historical alumni based calculation (I also provided this source, but was reverted during dispute). There are several more than 6 sources, but many of them were removed by Chicago IP by revert. Given that Columbia's reputation was stronger 50 to 60 years ago than it is even now and declined post-1968 makes your suggestion far too complicated to flesh out in the lead. It may be useful to include "Today" prior to the statement -- "Today, it is often cited as one of the world's most prestigious universities".74.108.157.211 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have more sources, then provide them here. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think such lines are absurd in an encyclopedia . The content of the article should make that clear. (in fact, I suggest that there is no valid use of the word "prestigious" in WP)  DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)